Closing the gender pay gap is a national priority, but due to misunderstanding the problem we have failed to fully close it. The good news is we are already making great progress in this area, albeit largely by accident. Even better, now that we understand the true culprit we can speed up our progress via more deliberate efforts.

Misunderstanding the nature of the problem.

For decades we have labored under the misconception that the gender earnings gap was due to institutional discrimination against women. In order to combat this, we have focused our efforts on affirmative action programs and equal opportunity laws and enforcement. However, as economists have stubbornly pointed out, if women were being systematically paid less than men for the same productivity this would create an opportunity for employers to gain a competitive advantage by only hiring women. What we now understand is that the earnings gap is actually caused by women and men making different choices regarding education and employment.

The simple solution

Some have looked at the root cause of the earnings gap and determined that there is either no real problem, or that the problem can’t be solved. This is untrue. Equality of the sexes is a national priority and we are a wealthy nation. No matter what the cost, it will be worth it to close the earnings gap. Now that we understand the root cause of the problem, the solution is surprisingly obvious. We need to remove the incentives which are causing men to prioritize higher earnings. Men prioritize earnings under the outdated patriarchal system where men are seen as the breadwinners. Until we solve this problem, the wage gap will persist. Part of the problem is biological, but we know that there are institutional ways to circumvent these differences of biology.

What we need to do is remove the powerful incentives men and boys perceive to being the family breadwinner. These incentives are the root cause of men choosing harder but higher paying majors, accepting a longer commute, working longer hours, choosing a more demanding or even dangerous work environment, etc. It is important to understand that these choices are cumulative and begin very early in life. As I mentioned above part of the problem is biological; men are motivated to make these sexist choices by a desire to be more successful sexually. While we can’t change men’s and women’s sexual natures, we know we can do a great deal to change the rules of the sexual marketplace. We need to move away from the old sexist view of men as breadwinners, and instead have men focus on being as sexually desirable as possible. To do this, we need to move away from our outdated and sexually restrictive marriage based sexual/family system to one based on continuous sexual re-choosing.

How do we know this will work?

Radically changing our sexual and family structure is going to be expensive (although we have already made great progress here), so it is important to know ahead of time that doing so will achieve our goals. Fortunately because we have already been moving in this direction, we can test the hypothesis. For brevity I’ll only offer three separate data points in this essay, but the evidence that a marriage based system creates incentives for men to study/work/earn excessively is overwhelming. The first data point I’ll offer is from the American Enterprise Institute. Their most recent study on the topic found that married men earn at least $15,900 per year more than unmarried men. This greatly understates the perverse incentives marriage causes for men to work harder however, because it doesn’t account for the incentives men experience to maximize their earnings potential in the years leading up to marriage. Men who choose marriage as a sexual/family strategy know that the more they can earn the better their options in marriage will be, and this is why so many men persist in making problematic choices in their education and early career which lead to much of the gender pay gap.

The second data point I’ll offer is more tangible. To prove that marriage is the source of the pay gap problem we need to find a community which has moved away from marriage and see if the earnings gap has actually disappeared. In the US the logical choice for this test is Blacks, as marriage has all but collapsed among Black Americans. Over 70% of Black children are now born out of wedlock, and this statistic continues to improve. At the same time, we also know that the Black gender earnings gap has all but disappeared. As Hanna Rosin explains, Black women earn 94% of the weekly earnings of Black men. Black men are leading the way here, and all we have to do is get the rest of the nation’s men to follow.

But do we know that moving away from marriage works to reduce the productivity of White men as well? Can we count on White men ceasing to disrupt our efforts at gender equality if we do something as simple as move away from marriage? We know the answer to this is yes. In just the past few years our decades long investment in weakening marriage has become undeniable, and White men have made incredible progress in closing the gender earnings gap. The charts below show the exciting nature of this progress over time, and as you can see the greatest improvements are being made for the older age brackets. White unmarried men are now nearly as likely to earn nothing as White married and unmarried women:

These Peter Pan men are national heroes who are leading the way to a much more equal society. Unfortunately as you can see the married men continue to be the source of the problem by continuing to earn at nearly the same rates during the Great Recession as they did in the years leading up to it. The same pattern of married men creating gender inequality is also visible if we look at the top earnings brackets:

We need a national strategy.

Now that we know that marriage is the problem, how do we solve it? Unfortunately we won’t be able to ever entirely eradicate marriage. However, even where we can’t entirely prevent weddings we can sufficiently weaken the institution to achieve something very close to gender equality. To do this, we will need a coordinated effort across all of our legal, social, and religious institutions.

Legislature & Family Courts:

Our lawmakers and family courts have already done much of the work required to weaken marriage as an institution, so our focus should be on ensuring that we don’t lose existing progress while further weakening marriage. Child Support teamed up with No Fault Divorce are our best policy tools to eradicate marriage and the incentive for men to work harder. With these two policies working together, we can remove all or nearly all of the status of husbands.

No Fault Divorce is a potent tool not only to convert husbands into child support payers, but to weaken the status of husbands within marriage. By continuing our national policy of No Fault Divorce those young men who don’t witness their fathers being evicted from the home will see that their father can only remain in the household so long as he caters to their mother. By continuing with this policy we send a powerful message to young men that being a husband is low status and not something to aspire to. This message is reinforced every time a young man sees his own father or the father of a peer evicted from the home and treated harshly by our family courts.

We need to remind our family court judges that the work they are doing in destroying marriage is a multi-generational effort. While judges can’t immediately see the positive social results each time they reduce a husband and father to impoverished child support payer, with each man they crush they are sending a powerful message to future generations of men. Family court judges are the true heroes of our efforts to destroy marriage, and they must continue investing in generational progress. Even in cases where the father is not married to the mother, family court judges are crucial to erasing the incentives for men to earn more than women. Unlike marriage which creates an incentive for men to work as hard as possible, child support is a structure which discourages productivity by assigning men an earnings quota (imputed income) and threatening them with imprisonment if they fail to meet this quota.

Family court judges and even legislators may be tempted to see harsh penalties against men for not meeting earnings quotas as working against the goal of reducing men’s earnings, but since the earnings quotas are assigned based on each man’s past earnings over time this creates a culture where men learn that productivity is punished. The point to remember is the goal is to change the culture so that men no longer perceive an incentive to work harder. Just like with the Soviet Union, a quota system will (and already has) greatly reduce men’s perceptions of the importance of working as hard as possible.

The entertainment industry:

As with any drive to change the culture, our entertainment industry will be crucial in destroying marriage. They are already doing an excellent job in creating books and movies selling divorce to women, but we can do better. I propose the President create a blue ribbon commission to look for ways to create more visibility to the importance of selling divorce to women. The commission should use the book/movie Eat Pray Love as the template for success in this regard. Young men already see that divorce is openly celebrated by women, but we can still make this more clear. We need to create a national dialog on why divorce is empowering for women, while reminding men that discarded husbands are villains who deserve the harsh treatment our courts reserve for them. This effort by our entertainment industry will reinforce the message our family courts are working so hard to send to young men. All young men need to learn that marriage and even fatherhood are foolish choices for men, and that working hard to be a breadwinner will make them both a fool and a villain. One area of special focus for the entertainment industry should be plot lines which blame husbands for making their wives unhappy by focusing on work.

Our churches and religious institutions:

Last but not least is the essential role our churches and other religious institutions are playing in the crucial goal of destroying marriage. If you haven’t already spoken with your pastor about this, be sure to remind him of the importance of giving moral cover to women who divorce and/or have children out of wedlock. Whenever possible, religious leaders need to refer to single mothers as “heroic”, and suggest that they should be treated as widows. In addition, pastors and other religious leaders need to abolish the outdated and dangerous concept of headship. If young men are allowed to see husbands as the head of the household, they will have an incentive to focus on preparing for marriage instead of mastering their skills at picking up women. As I have shown, men who focus on marriage are creating our gender earnings gap by working too hard and producing too much. To solve this problem, pastors should simply ignore the parts of the Bible and Christian tradition teaching headship and submission. In addition to ignoring Christian teaching on headship, religious leaders should also work to teach Christian men that headship is really a form of abuse. Instead of traditional headship, religious leaders should teach Christian husbands that their proper role is to submit to their wives. They should also teach wives that threats of divorce are a powerful and appropriate way to grasp power in their marriages. The movie Fireproof and the accompanying book The Love Dare are excellent teaching tools in this area, but we need to make sure that the message is continually driven home.

Beware the naysayers.

While what we need to do is obvious, we need to constantly guard against reactionary forces which could cause us to lose progress. As we can already see, the more successful we are at destroying marriage the greater the costs will be. As we continue to achieve the glorious progress of gender equality, reactionary forces are going to try to stand in the way by pointing out that our tax revenues and economic growth will stagnate and fall while our social welfare costs increase dramatically. In addition, opponents of progress will point to the host of social problems a nation of fatherless children causes. We need to steel our resolve and never turn back from achieving our goals. No matter how many more social workers and police we need to hire, or how many more prisons we need to build, we need to hold fast and keep the importance of gender equality in mind. We have already come a long way, and we are too close to give up now.

As a bonus, it only takes one child to yoke a man to the Child Support system and provide all these benefits, so a beneficial side effect will be population reduction and less drain on the environment!

Well done, Dalrock. You’re setting the bar high for the new year already.

Even after the feminists of our day reach the point where men are making less then women, there still will not be “gender” equality (there never will be equality of the sexes – at least not as the term is used by feminists). However, we will be much closer to living in mud huts and the tribal like society that an unchecked FI will inevitably lead to.

To achieve sexual equality humans would have to make one sex biologically alike to the other. Then you really only have one sex, no procreation, no future, and probably no sammiches. Anything else would leave room for sexual inequality.

“Even after the feminists of our day reach the point where men are making less then women, there still will not be “gender” equality (there never will be equality of the sexes – at least not as the term is used by feminists). ”

_
It will be much worse. Rather than seeing men’s income decline as putting equality in danger, men will be chided even more for not pulling their weight . There will be calls to raise taxes on men (even if they earn less) and reductions in social services (even though they currently pay more in and use less) available to them.

As a bonus, it only takes one child to yoke a man to the Child Support system and provide all these benefits, so a beneficial side effect will be population reduction and less drain on the environment!

I know you’re being sarcastic Cail, but I can’t help but point out the tragic dimension. Most (as in, nearly all) of the kids raised under the “child support” model will grow up to be lazy, entitled dolts.

Millions of productive citizens are being damaged beyond repair, before they get a chance to take their places as this society’s productive workers, soldiers, thinkers and parents. The child support model, lauded by both liberals and conservatives in North America, is our one way ticket to a global idiocracy.

No Fault Divorce is a potent tool not only to convert husbands into child support payers, but to weaken the status of husbands within marriage. By continuing our national policy of No Fault Divorce those young men who don’t witness their fathers being evicted from the home will see that their father can only remain in the household so long as he caters to their mother. By continuing with this policy we send a powerful message to young men that being a husband is low status and not something to aspire to. This message is reinforced every time a young man sees his own father or the father of a peer evicted from the home and treated harshly by our family courts.

Increase the amount of spending on genetic engineering at all levels of government so we can engineer a new & improved human being. The coup de gras will be imitating the one creature on this earth that has gender equality: the earthworm. How does it have gender equality you ask? Each worm is a hermaphrodite – having both male and female reproductive organs. Men will know what it is like to menstruate and how it feels to be pregnant and give birth to a baby. Women will know what it is like to get kicked in the balls.

Let’s make everyone of equal height as well. The question is, whether by giving compulsory stilts to shorter people, or by lopping legs off of taller people. Or perhaps both? Either way, equality for all!

Well done. The only mis-step was the reference to Peter Pan man-boys. Everyone knows that when the “Peter Pan” dog whistle is blown, its time for a call for men to grow up, man up and marry those strong independant women who need a real man. Its tricky work writing in favour of the Feminine Imperitive – you need you be careful that when you try and benefit women in one way, you dont call attention to the fact that you’re contradicting one of the other tropes meant to benefit women. You have to tiptoe between the double standards as if you were in a mine field…

Bravo dalrock, glad to see somebody is finally mentioning that America family’s are going to end up like the black community. Fathers matter, and if fathers aren’t valued, you end up with a broken society.

Child support laws definitely need to be changed as this is actually effecting the alpha males in a negative way. They should be out spreading their seed to all single women and not busy working to pay for all the children they have fathered. That is the beta chump’s job as we have discussed in the past (bachelor taxes).

We need to immediately eliminate child support payments for alpha men (based on a daily national photo survey where women will rate whether said male is alpha or not) and increase all taxes on beta men (another national daily photo survey that women will confirm whether said male is in fact beta) by 30%. If any beta men have a problem with this and try and quit or work less we will either increase their taxes even more, imprison them or have them shot by firing squad.

Since there are many more betas then alphas this will reduce the income of the majority of men and effectively close the income gap for good (hopefully women will now be making more then men which means of course wages are finally equal) and the alpha is now free to keep shooting his seed far and wide with no children to worry about taking care of. This is a win win proposal and I hope you will all join me in petitioning congress to adopt this legislation as soon as possible.

As I have shown, men who focus on marriage are creating our gender earnings gap by working too hard and producing too much. To solve this problem, pastors should simply ignore the parts of the Bible and Christian tradition teaching headship and submission. In addition to ignoring Christian teaching on headship, religious leaders should also work to teach Christian men that headship is really a form of abuse. Instead of traditional headship, religious leaders should teach Christian husbands that their proper role is to submit to their wives. They should also teach wives that threats of divorce are a powerful and appropriate way to grasp power in their marriages.

[speaking as Wormwood]
Perhaps we could present all sides of the ~christian~ perspective like a smorgasbord? But make sure to present those unsavoury views at the end of the table near the toilets.

Nicely done. Satire aside maybe this kind of thinking isn’t so crazy in the end. Supporting feminism as a strategy (instead of fighting against it) has been tossed around in the manosphere more than once and recently on youtube, can’t remember where. Not unlike the kind of talk we’ve heard in recent years regarding socialism and various bad policy from the political left. Let the system fail. These idiotic ideas will crash and burn on there own if they are unhindered. The only gamble is that in the end there won’t be enough left of society to rebuild.

I’m making plans now to do my part. Never married, no kids and a high earner. What the hell am I still doing this for? My businesses produce a lot and my income is high as a result. For my trouble I’m taxed, taxed and then taxed some more. It’s absolutely sickening and I’m tired of being a slave for half the calendar year to this disgusting immoral whore called USA. In a few more years, if it lasts that long, I’ll be able to live on much less and stop feeding the system. If we don’t see more state rights in the next few years and major political changes I may start moving underground, literally. I’m not a “doomsday prepper” but those people aren’t all crazy.

Satire aside, I think the central hypothesis might be slightly flawed. The question we need to answer, which has, I am quite sure, been partially is: “Isn’t it the case that women follow the money?” I can’t precisely quote a study that I read a couple of years ago but the conclusion was along those lines: “Men who make more money have a 50% higher chance to get married.” So it might not be marriage -> money but money -> marriage.

I believe it is women who are perpetuating the gender pay gap by deliberately going for the wealthier males. Also it is women who insist on getting married to cement their afluent lifestyles. Of course blue pill men will go for it, believing that it’s the only way for them to get consistently laid.

If you want to solve this problem make it mandatory for women to marry men who make less than them.

When an organization becomes feminized, priority shifts from efficient and profitable production of goods and services to development of labarynthine rules for the comfort and security of women. Ossification and organizational death are inevitable.

Interesting article, Exfernal. I’m about halfway through it and I just read this and realized that only a bunch of academics would need 622 words and a chart to say that young woman tend to follow a strategy of “Alpha Lays / Beta Pays” [emphasis added]:

Diminishing Marginal Utility

Marginal utility refers to the expected benefit one might obtain from an increase in any given good (the third slice of pizza as compared to the second, for example). For many goods, there is a diminishing marginal utility: the expected benefit of getting 1 slice of pizza as compared to none is greater than the expected benefit of getting 11 slices as compared to 10, for instance. If one plots a utility function for such a good, therefore, it is not linear, but rather curves downward in typical logarithmic fashion. Figure 1 shows college students’ judgments of the marriage value of opposite-sex targets as a function of the targets’ income (based on Kenrick, Sundie, Nicastle, & Stone, 2001). Two things are important to note: First, students perceived greater increases in value in going from potential mates with very low incomes to middle levels of income than they did in going from potential mates with middle incomes to high incomes. Second, the curve is steeper for females judging males than for males judging females; women care more about avoiding destitute partners than do males. In contrast, when the same participants judged identical targets as short-term sexual partners, women’s judgments of men became less steep (similar to the male line in Figure 1), and men’s judgments yielded a poorly fitting and relatively flat function (indicating that males judging women as sexual partners were largely oblivious to those women’s income levels).

When one considers the different contributions that men and women make to their offspring under long- versus short-term mating arrangements, these judgments can be seen to reflect rational biases. Women’s contributions to their offspring have traditionally involved more direct physiological resources (e.g., pregnancy and nursing), whereas men’s contributions have traditionally involved indirect resources (provision of food and shelter), which in modern societies are signaled by one’s ability to generate income. Thus, LONG-TERM MATE VALUE is more likely to increase as A FUNCTION OF INCOME for women judging male partners (a.k.a. Beta Pays) than for men judging female partners; hence, the curve is steeper for women. In the ancestral past, it is likely that offspring survival depended on having access to a critical minimum level of resources. Though more is better, further amounts beyond the required mimimum likely contributed increasingly less to survival prospects. Thus, the curves flatten as income increases, reflecting diminishing marginal utility of income. In support of this, the value of status has been found to marginally diminish in economics-based research investigating women’s preferences for long-term mates (N. Li, Kenrick, Bailey, & Linsenmeier, 2002).

For SHORT-TERM SEXUAL PARTNERS, women may be less certain of obtaining a portion of a man’s resources, and thus seem to place greater emphasis on male features correlated with “GOOD GENES” (e.g., symmetry, attractiveness, physical size) (a.k.a. Alpha Lays) (Gangestad, Garver-Apgar, Simpson, & Cousins, 2007; Little, Jones, & DeBruine, 2008). On the other hand, because men stand to make very little investment of indirect resources to offspring from short-term mates, they become relatively nondiscriminating (e.g., Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Kenrick, Sadalla, Groth, & Trost, 1990; Li & Kenrick, 2006). Such considerations are reflected by the flatter female curve and non-fitting male curve when considering potential short-term mates.

As in the case of men and women judging mates and seeking status, we would guess that marginal utility curves will vary depending on a number of factors linked to fundamental motivations and life-history strategy. For example, one might expect that activating the motivation to seek new mates would lead the utility curve for one’s own increments in status to flatten at a higher level for men, but not for women (cf. Griskevicius, Cialdini, & Kenrick, 2006; Roney, 2003).

Of course the authors’ blind attribution of absolutely everything to an “evolutionary history” that never happened is a needless distraction, but the points they make about how things work in the here-and-now seem solid.

The deeper implication is that women say they want “pay equality” because some part of their brain tells them that’s a good thing, and because generally WDUC&EVW, they push for policies that will (and have) created conditions where female work is overpaid and men are disincentivized from becoming providers. These policies have generally reduced women’s need for “beta bucks” – and they pushed for those policies while not realizing that the individual men who used to provide beta bucks to individual women also provided a WHOLE LOT OF NON-MONETARY STUFF that our modern “Strong Independent Woman [TM]” cannot provide for herself or her offspring. The differential outcomes between kids brought up with two biological parents versus those brought up by “choice mommies” is proof that the policy shift was bad for everyone… feminism hurts women, too.

Here, let me put your mind to rest, NO. It deals with “logic” and not “feelings” so it is completely beyond a Feminist…. Use them for what they are best used for – at least when they are young and still attractive – don’t try to use logic – you’re wasting your time and hers, better to strip her down, throw her on the bed and use her like she wants to be used.That is best way to deal with women in general. Then you enjoy the interaction, and really, isn’t that ALL that really matters anyway? You waste too much of your time worrying about what Feminists think – they don’t. So enjoy the ones that are attractive to you, but otherwise don’t waste your time…

The video was idiotic. It followed the “disqualify” script very well. Anyone who disagreed was an idiot. Even the example of an identical resume with a male and female name failed to account for the baggage that women’s choices in the aggregate bring to the table.

The observable generality is that women will work less due to family obligations in many cases. That means that the average women will not devote as much effort to the job as the man in those cases. Thus people have an ingrained idea that women will devote less effort to work and inherently value them less, no matter what platitudes they may spout about equality.

This may not be nice for the women who may work against the mold, but the whole “equal pay for equal work” idea is really a demand to ignore an individual’s contribution to the job.

We’ve been over this before – feel free to go back to the post in June or July last year where I and few others demolished the worldview that tries – and fails – so spectacularly in explaining the cosmos without a Designer. I’m not inclined to go through all that again now when it’s easier to just direct you there. You may mock, “God did so,” but “Evolution did so” is far worse – the existence of God is not literally impossible. Even the main spokesman for your side of that debate finally had to admit that the odds against non-supernatural explanations are so long that the only way to even begin to produce the current world is to posit – utterly without evidence – that there are an infinite number of universes, and in one of them (this one), life overcame the infinitely-steep odds and… happened. It also relies on the theoretical idea that zero times infinity produces a positive number, otherwise even an infinite number of universes would not produce life by chance. To flatly assert that evolution is the cause of anything – as the authors did – is to call forth a rather famous quote by a rather famous atheist, “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence,” which is what I did.

Hopefully we can just bypass all that in this thread, though, especially since I agree with most of the conclusions the authors come to. I’m not a big fan of Chateau Hartiste (although I scan the articles there occasionally), but in my limited observations there, one of his favorite things to do seems to be to point out whenever a scientific paper backs up the red pill, like the one in your link. To the extent that the paper’s authors wrote about things that can be observed, they did well.

As if “Because Evolution” is that much different. Note the Divine Fiat argument doesn’t require circular logic.

Considering how harmful AFBB is to a woman’s children, such women are behaving in a way that could not have been programmed into them by natural selection. Women are therefore provably faulty human beings, as predicted by Christianity but not TENS.

If we’re going to close the pay gap, then we need a reverse affirmative action for women.

One reason women make less money than men, is women choose college degrees and jobs that pay less than the one’s men choose. We must take that choice away from women. We need to limit women from entering traditional female jobs and education majors until women are on an equal status in men’s areas.

The number of women that can major in or art or human resources in college should be limited until the number women who major in STEM is the same as the number of men who do.

The number of women who can become teachers or nurses should be limited until the number of women who are computer programmers and oil rig workers is exactly the same as the number of men in those professions.

Call it affirmative restricting. Take away women’s choices and force them into higher paying college degree and career fields, whether they like them or not.

Once the fact that humans are a created species is accepted, we have an entire new way of getting at the truth. Who needs predictive power when the Creator gave us an operating manual? Seems practical enough to me.

Divine fiat has predictable power if that Divine being says that something will happen in the future. Evolution can’t even explain the known facts about the past – it is utterly worthless for predictions abut the future. Not one single prediction based on evolution has ever come to pass. Compare that to the stunning number of prophesies contained in the Bible that came true years later – in many cases hundreds or even thousands of years later – to the letter.

For the sake of brevity, this site lists just 13 of those prophesies, which were fulfilled – to the letter – as matters of historical fact. The odds of all of them happening as predicted are around 1-in-10^138th power. That’s a one followed by 138 zeros. And that’s just 13 of the hundreds of prophesies found in the Bible that have already occurred. And although we don’t have definitive proof for every one of those available to us now, it is striking that not a single one for which we have evidence today has ever been shown to be false. Not. Even. One. There’s a so-called “Rational Wiki” page that attempts to do cast doubt on a small number of them, but aside from the absurd notion that atheists have a special claim to rationality (quite the opposite is true), each explanation relies either by taking clearly symbolic things literally, not acknowledging that prophesies about future events don’t undermine Biblical predictive power because they haven’t happened yet, or outright misrepresentation of historical facts, such as the section on the destruction of the city of Tyre.

I guess I don’t know what they’re teaching in “Science” courses anymore… When I was taking them, if a model made predictions that were letter-perfect to the tune of 1-in-10^138th power – and never known to get one wrong – I would consider that a better predictive model than one that couldn’t predict – or even explain – anything at all. Call me a crazy anti-science fundie, but I’m old-school that way.

I have, over the holidays, continued to read the paper by David de la Croix and Fabio Mariani of the the Catholic University of Louvain entitled From Polygyny to Serial Monogamy: a unified theory of marriage institutions. This is what I take away from it:

1. Before the second millenium there were few rich men and those that were rich tended (as did Charlemagne) to have a number of wives. Women preferred to be a wife of a rich man than the wife of a poor man; poor men naturally preferred Monogamy.

2. The Urban Revolution of 1000 – 1300 increased the number of rich men; women could therefore more easily marry monogamously, and the Lateran Council of 1215 outlawed polygamy by preventing the illegitimate offspring of wealthy men from inheriting. (The Church could do this as it was effectively the E.U. of the day).

3. The rise of education in the Nineteenth century, especially of women, increased the number of rich women. They, naturally, would favour serial monogamy; serial monogamy would not be much liked by poor men but richer men would of course be happy with it.

The question is therefore: when women are now earning as much as men, often more, what will women then prefer? The authors largely evade that save for a footnote (no 33) where they acknowledge that Polyandry might result, that is to say, where a women has more than one husband. Women do not want to marry poor men, and rich men will not tolerate infidelity, thus polyandrous situations will be based on sexual attractiveness (or perhaps Alpha Fux, Beta Bux). The rise of the male gigolo is a form of short term Polyandry. The continuum seems therefore to be Polygyny – Monogamy – Serial Monogamy – Polyandry. As Deti say, one should not be unattractive; the rational response to Polygyny (from a male) is thus either MgTOW or P.U.A.

Opus, clarify your thoughts on #3, please. You paraphrase the section as follows,

3. The rise of education in the Nineteenth century, especially of women, increased the number of rich women. They, naturally, would favour serial monogamy; serial monogamy would not be much liked by poor men but richer men would of course be happy with it.

I would think that rich men might grudgingly tolerate it, but would be less than happy with it, for the simple reason that a man wealthy and powerful enough to get an abundance of wives would prefer them to be young and virginal rather than him being the last stop on the carousel as they screw their hypergamous way to the top tier of men.

In the Book of Esther (Chapter 2, Verses 1-4) we see that when the Persian ruler wanted to increase his harem and choose a new “first” wife,

After these things, when the wrath of king Ahasuerus was appeased, he remembered Vashti, and what she had done, and what was decreed against her. Then said the king’s servants that ministered unto him, Let there be fair young virgins sought for the king: And let the king appoint officers in all the provinces of his kingdom, that they may gather together all the fair young virgins unto Shushan the palace, to the house of the women, unto the custody of Hege the king’s chamberlain, keeper of the women; and let their things for purification be given them: And let the maiden which pleaseth the king be queen instead of Vashti. And the thing pleased the king; and he did so.

No doubt there were many beautiful and skilled courtesans and even widows in the Persian Empire, but the call went out for virgins only – for reasons that everyone here will understand. Do you think in circumstances such as those to which you refer that powerful men would choose women who “traded up” to them by means of serial monogamy, or would they choose relatively unspoiled women instead? The implications are significant either way.

If I have understood the authors correctly, the reason that rich men would be happy with serial monogamy (although Polygamy would have been their first choice) would be because being rich, they can afford divorce.

Interestingly, the authors say that the worst possible outcome for a woman would be to be a rich woman married to a poor man who had another wife (or wives) who was also poor. – You never see that do you!

I was about to go down a rat-hole with a couple of what-if’s? regarding the Lateran Counsel of 1215 with regard to William the Bastard (who was born before it), and Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond and Somerset (who died too soon for it to matter), but I’d rather not drag you and everyone else off topic.

Per your observation: it is my understanding that in some tribal societies a woman may inherit the obligations (read: feed the wife and children) of a deceased brother if there are no males in line. Thus a woman from a wealthy family (the term “wealthy” being very relative here), could acquire a wife. In order to offset the expense of meeting that obligation, she might “farm her out” to bear the children of other male relatives so as to produce children who would be considered her own… children who she would view as assets of the relationship (in the sense that Daniel Amneus – and custody law before 1850 – mean). How that would work with a poor man is something else entirely, as you noted. I suspect a rich woman would prefer to be with a still richer man, but if she didn’t make the cut to land one of those positions, she might become a cougar of sorts, but one married to her boy-toys, who would probably have little sexual freedom in exchange for her largesse. I dunno’ – this makes my head spin.

i) The assumption that ‘feminism’ was not already the dominant ideology.
ii) The pushback against ‘feminism’ in 2014 was far more than any prior year.

I mean, there seems to be no limit to their delusion.

Just like the Global Warming cultists saying 2014 was the hottest year on record, while ignoring and not adding where it was record cold. This data came from the UN IPCC so it’s about as accurate as a broken digital watch.

“The observable generality is that women will work less due to family obligations in many cases. That means that the average women will not devote as much effort to the job as the man in those cases.”

Just an interesting further observation on this topic. I’m an engineer; my job involves physical exertion about .1% of the time. However, I was on travel supporting a product a while back, and the steel cable inside an assembly that raised a transmitter up broke. My boss and I used a crane to lift it out and we replaced the cable. We lifted one end with the crane and then I lifted the other side of the assembly up so we could slide it back together.

If I was a woman who was equally capable as an engineer, I would not have been strong enough to help fix this component, and we would’ve had to wait the whole weekend until we could rope some other guys into helping. That would’ve lost us time on station and would make our product look worse.

I always think of this and similar things when people say “a woman should be hired if she’s just as good as a man.” A woman who is equally capable at the job itself is still not as valuable as an employee as a man, because men bring physical strength which can be leveraged for the job (even if it is not required for normal job duties), while women have no such advantage.

There will be calls to raise taxes on men (even if they earn less) and reductions in social services (even though they currently pay more in and use less) available to them.

Yes, but ultimately this will be about as effective as measures the Soviets took to increase productivity. You can’t tax what someone doesn’t earn, or, more precisely, you can’t tax what you don’t know someone is earning.

This is already happening – it seems the social stigma that used to go along with dodging taxes is pretty much gone. Every time I need some outside help with the house all the contractors, handymen, and painters want cash.

I work as a maintenance technician in a large industrial establishment. I am well paid. There are about 15 men (and one woman) on my crew. We have the opportunity to work almost as much overtime as we want. The married guys with stay at home wives (I’m one) work all the overtime they can get. The married guys with working wives work some overtime. Most of the single guys work no overtime at all. We make enough money that a singe guy working no overtime has a much higher than average lifestyle. I have one mate, whose wife left with the kids and moved to Australia. She gets more than half his money and he is consequently always broke, but he doesn’t bother to work overtime because the more he makes the more she gets. So my personal observations pretty much match the data to a tee.

“Bravo dalrock, glad to see somebody is finally mentioning that America family’s are going to end up like the black community.”

Nice to be thought of as a failure. Sarcasm off.

There really is no getting around the indisputable fact that the black community in America has failed dismally on all metrics pertaining to family formation and sustaining of the same. It is an easily provable statistical fact. Unlike many of the other nonsense spouted about people like you and I, it’s not even something you have to twist like a pretzel to find proof of.

I give Dalrock credit for acknowledging the role the social engineers played in bringing the situation to this point. My husband and I years ago came to terms with the fact that we are NOT defined by anyone else’s failure or statistics. We have not failed but in fact have exceeded most Americans of any hue with regard to what we have accomplished with our marriage and family, and so things like this sadden s without defining us.

The reality is that the American family as a whole is on its way to becoming a mirror reflection of the black community. If not in terms family formation (whites and everyone else still get married at much higher levels than blacks for now anyway), then certainly the same when it comes to sustaining families as the few couples who do bother to marry find themselves in the anti-family court system when the marriage fails.

One interesting point – about boys witnessing their father’s expulsion from the home.

I knew a man whose family lost their home to foreclosure in the 1930s, and were physically evicted. This had such a traumatic effect on him, as a young boy, that for the rest of his life he was terrified of debt, and he built his own house rather than take out a mortgage.

There must be many boys who have seen their father forcefully removed from the family home. If boys knew the truth about frivorce, they would never marry. When a woman frivorces her husband, and chooses to poison her children’s minds against their father, her motive may be self-justification, but her lies also help to keep her sons available as marriage fodder for the next generation of strong, independent women.

As for the pay gap. Women will get the same treatment as the illegals and soon to be legals will force lower wages on them .. so they will get a dose of their own medicine via a more unqualified and/or more willing candidate to work at a lower wage. They won’t have a chance to maintain liveable wages (according to th wimminz) when that happens. And no man will come to their defense by this point.

Plus the new voting block will have significant power and influence. So much for the old. In with the new.

If the goal was to bankrupt America and have a ready replacement option (ie people willing to exept more socialist policies) ready to impliment then th wimminz played right into their hands.

Yeah, we’ve been down this road before, and I’ve though a bit about things since the thread last summer. The problem is that the term “evolution” is, in the popular mind, inexorably tied to a materialist and atheist philosophy. This is of course a category error, because evolution in itself is a scientific theory, whereas materialism and atheism are philosophies. But this is just how things are in the popular mindset, and even experienced debaters often have trouble separating the two. Thus, I’ve been named the “best spokesperson” for Exfernal’s “side”, even though our opinions vastly differ – I offered up the multiverse explanation as evidence for God, not against Him – my point was if you are going to adhere to an atheist philosophy come hell or high water this is where you would need to go, given the infinitesimal probability of life coming about through chemical reactions in inorganic matter in this universe. Similarly, another poster says that evolution means that everything gets better and better “all by itself”.

But, if one accepts the existence of God, is he necessarily going to say evolution is false? Well, yes, if one thinks Genesis is Divine revelation, and that God meant Genesis literally, not as an allegory or myth. If one denies this, however, the answer is no. There needs to be some other reason to think that God created life forms via miracle vs. the way God normally operates, namely via secondary causation. The Christian need not go there. The Christian can simply say, I don’t need another reason; Genesis is sufficient. But this is of course not sufficient for the non-Christian theist. Just because God could have created the cup of coffee in front of me via miracle does not give me reason to think He did so. Personally, I think Christians can concede this point without it being fatal to Christianity. But I have yet to see a well constructed, well thought-out argument against “theistic evolution” which doesn’t, in the end, either slip in a materialist/atheist concept of evolution and argue against that (e.g. a straw man), or in the end, argue against it based on theological grounds (e.g. begging the question, assuming Genesis is true).

Oh, and for the poster who said AF/BB is a bad evolutionary strategy for women because it is bad for their children – the WHOLE point, basically, of the ENTIRE manosphere is that women instinctively act this way BECAUSE it is best for their children. They get the best of both worlds – the best genes from the alphas, and resources from the betas. This gives their children a better chance at survival and reproduction, which is why this strategy will be evolutionary favored. This provides a satisfying explanation as to why women act that way. Saying God created women flawed – this is true but is not an explanation – why did God create women with that particular flaw instead of some other one?

Marcus,
You always post links to catholic sites which I’m never going to check out, in part because I don’t care to and in part because I’m not catholic, and, to my remembrance, you never post ANYthing other than these links.
I would, however, read your comments if you were to post some of those.
JF

What makes you think that abiogenesis can’t be a gradual, cumulative process of trial and error instead of one time ‘switch’ from inanimate matter to living one? Estimations of probability would be orders of magnitude apart.

“A Modest Proposal” indeed Dalrock! You either found an old memorandum laying around after a meeting of feminists and trilateralists in the 1970’s or you were channeling Betty Friedan. If this were a post on Jezebel or TwoX they would not get the satire.

I would add that if society would listen to the economic wisdom of women such as brilliant thinkers like Ayn Rand, we could eliminate wage disparity between genders by simply racing to the bottom. If you can’t raise female salaries, simply lower male ones. That is the American way after all.

Unless you choke the economic lifeblood out of the last male breadwinners; there is a danger women may be forced into marriages with productive men that trigger the female gag reflex.

All we need is for our Mr. Big President and White Knight Congressmen to enact more Free Trade agreements with Oligarchs and Communists {who surely will embrace American values once we throw more money at them} so we can outsource more male dominated job industries. Those jobs that can’t be sent oversees can be handled by cheaper H1B Visas and illegal immigrants; they can cheaply import males American woman won’t consider as mate worthy.

That is why embracing neo-liberal economic policies to create a society of unproductive thugs will keep the American Corporations, Banks, and Welfare State going; those thugs will tingle and service millions of indebted single mothers and women studies graduates.

Of course there’s no reason why abiogenesis in theory couldn’t proceed in a gradual process, but there’s a big difference between such a process in abiogenesis and in evolution. The difference is in evolution each genotype has the ability to make (imperfect) copies, and there is natural selection acting as a filter on which type of copies eventually survive. This is not the case in abiogenesis before the first self-replicating entity comes on the scene.

What makes you think that abiogenesis can’t be a gradual, cumulative process of trial and error instead of one time ‘switch’ from inanimate matter to living one? Estimations of probability would be orders of magnitude apart.

BrainyOne is right – gradual abiogenesis requires evolution without even the Darwinian philosophical fig-leaf of natural selection to drive it. But the problems facing abiogenesis are even deeper than that… the genetic “distance” between boxers and beagles can be crossed in slow, gradual steps (indeed, that is how dog breeders create “new” breeds). However, the genetic distance between inanimate rocks and living creatures cannot ever be crossed at all – gradually or rapidly. An analogy: if I’m going to walk to the end of my street (representing the genetic distance between boxers and beagles) I can do so in about 1500 steps. But if need to get beyond the edge of the universe (representing the genetic distance between rocks and anything that is alive) – and we deny the agency of anything originating from outside my own innate and unaided ability to help me cross the gap – I’m never going to make it no matter what I do. In other words, the odds of gradual abiogenesis and rapid abiogenesis are exactly the same… zero. Something with no possibility of occurring cannot even be considered a theory – it is a fairy tale for adults that we allow into “science” books.

If natural means cannot form life from non-living material slowly, nor can they form life from non-living material rapidly, and living material exists in a previously non-living Universe, the only scientifically and logically valid conclusion is that natural forces did not form living material at all. The only option is that something outside of nature – with the ability to create complex structures within nature – did so.

There is a Latin word that was brought into English for something that means “above, over, beyond” – the word “super.” There is another Latin word that was brought into English that refers to phenomena of the physical realm, that word is “natura” from which we derive words like “nature” and “natural.” If something physical exists and natural forces could not have caused it no matter what – then it is only proper to consider that strong, tangible proof of supernatural agency.

You always post links to catholic sites which I’m never going to check out, in part because I don’t care to and in part because I’m not catholic, and, to my remembrance, you never post ANYthing other than these links.
I would, however, read your comments if you were to post some of those.

You don’t have to read them, so no worries. However, I do post links other than to CAF. In fact, I did so on this very thread.

MarcusD: We appreciate you rolling in the muck for us and just bringing us the highlights.

Lyn and company: M.S. in molecular biology over here (just don’t tell anybody) before I went in a decidedly different direction for my PhD. There is no way- NO WAY- these molecules could randomly line up and suddenly crawl out of the slime as a single celled creature. I have a powerpoint on this topic with some pretty awesome pics. Logically it is not possible.

I use the analogy of Lincoln Logs. Lets imagine using Lincoln Logs to create a synthetic life form. If you dump a few hundred Lincoln Logs out of the box is it possible they could form intricate structures purely by random chance. Could they link together into complicated buildings and such purely randomly. That is, if you dump out a box of Lincoln Logs could they fall into that multi-turreted castle? The answer is YES. It is possible

So imagine dumping out a pile of Lincoln logs 1,000 Trillion times. Could you get a single structure randomly? Maybe. Anything is possible, right? In fact we find trace amounts (that is very, very small and isolated quantities) of amino acids in nature. .

The problem is that we are not dumping out Lincoln Logs to build our synthetic life! We are dumping out DIRT. If you dump out a pile of dirt an infinite number of times in an infinite number of universes could it EVER spontaneously form into Lincoln Logs, and then form intricate structures purely by chance? Ever? It is a ludicrous, logically false proposition. The dirt lands just right so a Lincoln Log forms and then it rolls and connects to the other Lincoln Log that magically formed. Ridiculous.

In this example, the Lincoln Logs represent amino acids. Amino Acids form into proteins. If you put the right proteins combined together with a semi-permeable membrane you might get a cell. Of course you also have to figure out how to get the proteins embedded into the semipermeable membrane and even if you do that it doesn’t suddenly come alive but they are working on it, any day now.

So the sequence without my cool micrographs of integral cellular proteins is this:

Dirt—Amino Acids—Proteins—Living Cells

Dirt—-Lincoln Logs—-Cool Structures—Synthetic Created Life

Logically, it doesn’t matter how many times you dump out the dirt. The dirt is not going to transmute into Lincoln Logs. Perhaps you can get a single Lincoln Log to form by randomly dumping out dirt. I don’t know how but it could happen. But you can’t turn that single Lincoln Log into a complex structure. Ever. Even given infinite time in an infinite number of universes. Now imagine the additional step of magically transmuting this structure that has already been magically created into something that is alive.

Proteins have never been found in nature outside of life and although we have never seen Lincoln Logs form cool structures randomly because the odds of something like that happening are astronomical, we have seen tiny trace amounts of amino acids. No proteins though. None. So if we don’t have proteins to mix around the bottom line is you can’t have life. You are missing a complete step. That is what they “scientists” say when they ramble on about needing to understand the Chemistry better. We understand the Chemistry very well. It is just not possible. Not without a designer. Life at the molecular level in the earliest stages and simplest forms is a LOUD cry for DESIGN.

Hope your break was rejuvenating. If this post is any indication, it was.

[I crossed DMZ (Dalrock Metro Zone) yesterday, , leaving a sentimental dog’s leash at a QT fuel stop at an exit just a few miles east of the moat that creates your empire’s eastern border, near the unorganized nomadic area of Goliad or something like that. A local tradesman I reached is sending it to me]

You appear to be making the flawed assumption that just because God could do something a certain way (Evolution in this case), it is at all likely He did so.

The idea of inter-species change happens by unguided processes is so off the wall that it is just as reasonable to assert God used Leprechauns to do so. God is certainly capable of doing whatever He wishes, but claiming He used a process that is very illogical and unlikely at that scale is idiotic if you really think about it. A giraffe that stretches its neck does not change its DNA. One that does not have a long enough neck to reach the food in the first place dies before it gives birth to offspring that might get a longer neck by chance. That is only within the species. Jumping between species is an entirely different (and much more unlikely) issue.

Genetics really kills the idea, though some are wedded to it for philosophical reasons. Christians and others who believe in a creator of some sort have no need to allow for stupid ideas. Variation is possible, but the basic types are already there, at some level of DNA.

Though my point is not to argue the issue, as Lyn87 does much better. It is to not those who believe in some form of a creator do not need to cater to the foolishness that many modern people believe in without thought any more than they have to accept the idiotic feminism that is a target of this blog.

I just thought of something. If indeed MGTOW becomes common enough that women exceed men in income, what’s next for feminism? At that time, women would likely pay more taxes than men. If they are annoyed about men refusing to man up now, imagine what they will feel if they think their hard-working strong and independent womanhood is supporting the manboys.

Free amino acids are being devoured by existing living organisms, so their lack of abundance NOW is not very conclusive. Szostak and al are trying to reproduce the process of abiogenesis, so it’s not hopeless in principle.

“You appear to be making the flawed assumption that just because God could do something a certain way (Evolution in this case), it is at all likely He did so.

The idea of inter-species change happens by unguided processes is so off the wall that it is just as reasonable to assert God used Leprechauns to do so. God is certainly capable of doing whatever He wishes, but claiming He used a process that is very illogical and unlikely at that scale is idiotic if you really think about it.”

Your argument as stated doesn’t make any sense. If God produced different species via evolution then it did not happen by unguided processes, by definition. If you wish to argue that it would be “illogical” or “unlikely” for God to produce different species via evolution (guided by Him) then you are going to need to do better than merely arguing by assertion. Why would be it be illogical or unlikely, and more illogical or unlikely than Him directly creating by way of miracle from inanimate matter?

I saw this over at Instapundit. Someone more qualified than I (Dalrock?) needs to address it. Warning: it’s kind of long, rambling and depressing.

Scott Alexander is the author. The article is a critique of feminists’ poor treatment of “nerds” (young men of above-average intelligence but below-average social skill). He begins thus…

“For those of you who don’t know, Scott Aaronson is one of the nicest, smartest, and most decent people there are. A few days ago, in response to a discussion of sexual harassment at MIT, Aaronson reluctantly opened up about his experience as a young man:”

“I suspect the thought that being a nerdy male might not make me “privileged”—that it might even have put me into one of society’s least privileged classes—is completely alien to your way of seeing things.
….
I was terrified that one of my female classmates would somehow find out that I sexually desired her, and that the instant she did, I would be scorned, laughed at, called a creep and a weirdo, maybe even expelled from school or sent to prison.
….
I scoured the feminist literature for any statement to the effect that my fears were as silly as I hoped they were. But I didn’t find any.
….
Because of my fears—my fears of being “outed” as a nerdy heterosexual male, and therefore as a potential creep or sex criminal—I had constant suicidal thoughts.
….
At one point, I actually begged a psychiatrist to prescribe drugs that would chemically castrate me….”

Here’s the part that literally made me slap my hand to my forehead.

“…the whole time I was struggling with this, I was also fighting a second battle: to maintain the liberal, enlightened, feminist ideals that I had held since childhood, against a powerful current pulling me away from them.
….
That I managed to climb out of the pit with my feminist beliefs mostly intact, you might call a triumph of abstract reason over experience. But I hope you now understand why I might feel “only” 97% on board with the program of feminism.”

You’ve got to be kidding me!

I was a scrawny, awkward, timid kid. But a few years in the Army put some weight on me, bestowed me with confidence and helped me grow out of my teenage awkwardness in my early 20s. By the time I started college, I was 23 and dated regularly.

Young men like Mr Aaronson need serious help, but who’s there to help them? My guess is that neither Mr Aaronson or other young men like him have older men in their lives who they can look up to. Men who can mentor them and present them with reality as it is, not as some wish it were. Some of that truth is that these young men need to seek self improvement. That is always difficult to hear, and even harder to undertake.

BrainyOne @ 11:35 am:
“Oh, and for the poster who said AF/BB is a bad evolutionary strategy for women because it is bad for their children – the WHOLE point, basically, of the ENTIRE manosphere is that women instinctively act this way BECAUSE it is best for their children.”

The results of AFBB–serial monogamy, cuckolding, pandemic venereal diseases and so on–has been catastrophic to American society. The Manosphere has explored this rather thoroughly. A welfare queen’s bastards are NOT better off than the children of a stable, intact marriage.

“They get the best of both worlds – the best genes from the alphas, and resources from the betas. This gives their children a better chance at survival and reproduction…”

Only until the gov’t stops forcing betas to raise other men’s children at gunpoint… and not counting the tendency of non-genetic fathers to abuse the mother’s kids he didn’t sire.

Incidentally, when did thieves, sociopaths and narcissists become the genetic ideal of humanity? I hope this is nobody’s idea of a better future.

“Saying God created women flawed – this is true but is not an explanation – why did God create women with that particular flaw instead of some other one?”

Going by the Garden of Eden account, women preferring the bad boy is perfectly consistent with Eve preferring the snake. If she had had a different flaw then humanity’s start would not have happened the way God, presumably, wanted it to.

Gunner:
“The results of AFBB–serial monogamy, cuckolding, pandemic venereal diseases and so on–has been catastrophic to American society. The Manosphere has explored this rather thoroughly…”

Well of course. But the Manosphere also recognizes that AFBB did not evolve in modern Western society; it predates it by quite a bit. AFBB is feral female behavior, which evolved in the absence of societal constraints. Modern society is very recent on the scene. It (until recently), severely worked to punish women who gave in to AFBB behavior. AF and children but no marriage? Sorry, no child support and no welfare. Also, be prepared to be labeled a slut no BB will touch. BB marriage and children and then frivorce? Sorry, the children are his. BB marriage then adultery? Sorry, no alimony either. I part company with some in the Manosphere when I maintain the beginning of the end of American society happened not in the late 1900s with second-wave feminism, but way back in the 1800s with “tender years” – that is the first instance society decided to reward, rather than punish, AFBB behavior.

“A welfare queen’s bastards are NOT better off than the children of a stable, intact marriage…”

True, in the context of modern society and the protections it provides for people less genetically fit for survival in the wild. Without those protections, settling for the inferior genes of a BB provider is a losing strategy compared to those women who were able to obtain AF genes and successfully raise their children to adulthood.

“Only until the gov’t stops forcing betas to raise other men’s children at gunpoint… and not counting the tendency of non-genetic fathers to abuse the mother’s kids he didn’t sire.”

Ah yes, but it is only recently, with DNA testing, that these betas were actually able to figure out that it actually was other men’s children, isn’t it? That is the only reason why the gov’t needs to force betas to raise other men’s children at gunpoint. Of course, feminists are also going to try to get paternity testing banned.

“Incidentally, when did thieves, sociopaths and narcissists become the genetic ideal of humanity? I hope this is nobody’s idea of a better future.”

Well, like it or not, it is well known in the Manosphere that those men with the dark triad of personality traits fare the best with women, and that those with the best morals have the hardest time generally speaking. Women don’t sexually select for idealistic men with high moral values and concepts – they select for those that will beat the living crap out of anything that threatens them or their children or do whatever it takes to neutralize the threat, morality or no – because that provides the best chance of raising offspring to survive and successfully reproduce themselves. Sane people realize that female sexual selection is not an ennobling factor in society and must be controlled.

In short, feminism can, in a nutshell, be described as the desire of women to engage in feral AFBB behavior without consequence – with the added wrinkle that the government is now to become another BB provider. In general, anti-feminist women are only so because they know the government becoming a better BB provider is going to lessen their husbands’ ability to be such – because the money comes from their taxes.

Issues regarding evolution notwithstanding, any so-called “Christian” Church that not only tolerates this behavior, but even encourages it and even “sanctifies” it, loses all credibility. But this is pretty much every Church in the country. I may say I do not have a lot of sympathy when, instead, loss of faith is blamed on scientists.

“The results of AFBB–serial monogamy, cuckolding, pandemic venereal diseases and so on–has been catastrophic to American society. The Manosphere has explored this rather thoroughly. A welfare queen’s bastards are NOT better off than the children of a stable, intact marriage.
….
Incidentally, when did thieves, sociopaths and narcissists become the genetic ideal of humanity? I hope this is nobody’s idea of a better future.
….
Going by the Garden of Eden account, women preferring the bad boy is perfectly consistent with Eve preferring the snake.”

What you describe is Woman’s sinful nature playing itself out unrestrained, and the consequences thereof. Man’s sinful nature plays out differently, but it is equally destructive, and is in fact complimentary to Woman’s sinful nature, just as the good traits in men and women are also complimentary.

After all, where would feral women be without their beloved thieves, sociopaths and narcissists?

All the evolutionary mumbo jumbo is a weak attempt to explain what the Bible already explained and demonstrated over and over again thousands of years ago.

As far as evolution goes, there is such a concept as misadaptation. Features that evolved in one context where they were beneficial for individual evolutionary success can be destructive in another, either for individual or species-wide evolutionary success, or both. Already Darwin explained this concept using the peacock: An individual peacock male benefits from growing a bigger tail, as the male with the biggest tail gets all the peahens. The resulting arms race to grow the biggest tale is, though, ecologically speaking, a massive waste of resources that’s only going to escalate. If some other species with a suitably close ecological niche would invade peacock territory, peacocks would go extinct.

That’s the thing with AFBB: A prehistorical alpha might have been a good provider in that context, since he’d provide security, and probably quite a bit of resources too due to probably being well positioned in the social order of the community. A contemporary alpha thug, not so much any of those things, but the instincts are still there.

Bluepillprofessor
There is no way- NO WAY- these molecules could randomly line up and suddenly crawl out of the slime as a single celled creature.

I realize this is a Christian blog and you’re a smart guy but that is a straw man if ever there was one.

Every culture, every civilization, has a model for the natural world. Here’s an example. We know the Maya were great astronomers. But they weren’t really astronomers. They believed the sun, the moon and the stars were gods, individual deities who exercised tremendous influence on their lives. So they studied their gods in the hope of better understanding them.

Your beliefs are like the Maya’s. You don’t know what you don’t know and you don’t understand that you have only a limited grasp of external reality, so you construct a story that adequately explains your observations and your beliefs. I call that pattern fitting and it’s a defining human trait.

The Stanton Video could keep us all busy for months. It was like he was escalating his rhetoric versus my having some rules for escalation of violence. With each utterance I thought he’d level off.rather, he approached the shark, jumped the shark….had them fill the pool with piranhas AND sharks, jumped again. The only reason he didn’t reach Monster Truck Rally level is the questions dried up.

I love good satire, but you made one critical error regarding the effect of child support. It does not dis-incentivize earnings, it does the oppostie. Imputed income is an estimate of a man’s earnings potential and is usually more than what he is currently earning. In order to pay child support based on imputed income a man must work more hours or find a better paying job. Therefore child support actually contributes to the pay gap. In order to dis-incentivize earnings for men Family Court judges need to shift their thinking. Men should be granted custody of children and women should be ordered to pay child support. This would place the burden of child care on men causing them to work less and would have the added benefit of forcing women to earn more, thereby doing double duty towards closing the pay gap. It could even reverse it.

I realize this is a Christian blog and you’re a smart guy but that is a straw man if ever there was one.

Very few Christians that I know personally hold to these silly, anti-scientific/anti-realistic viewpoints.

It’s actually the height of hubris to see so-called Christians telling the Christian God what he can and can’t do, as he creates and maintains the world, based upon human writings in a human book without an author.

That said, let’s get back to the fun stuff, which is to say, pissing in the faces of the feminists and their conservative enablers. Great Stanton video above, by the way. What a miserable little faggot! Sad to consider how many kids just spent the holidays without their fathers because of his bad policies.

@empathologism
Indeed. Part of it is good that the traditional Christo-feminist pattern of marriage is being put out there so clearly, it’s hard for anyone who knows anything to deny that he’s being wrong with all the good pull-quotes that’s in there.

The other part of it is that it’s almost not sporting (compared to one like Eldredge, who has the same views, that I’m dealing with now on my blog) given that he isn’t even trying to be deceptive about it.

The sad part of it is, if he’s going around to a number of groups with that exact message, there’s a significant contingent that believes that is the “Christian” way. We should all be very scared. This underscores my predicted split between the “Christian” manosphere and the regular manosphere, as the blogger that challenged Dalrock recently underscores. Stanton’s message is traditionalism unleashed. Stanton’s message is the Christian message. All bloggers who openly support marriage will have a very stark decision to make on whether to continue to do it (thereby throwing in with Stanton) or to oppose it.

First, Dalrock, I’d apologize for the thread swerve but a fast scan will show that Ballista and I are butting in on another ,if more heady,”Gods Not Dead” sort of discourse.

In keeping with that…..

@Boxer

It’s actually the height of hubris to see so-called Christians telling the Christian God what he can and can’t do, as he creates and maintains the world, based upon human writings in a human book without an author.

Either you posted in haste and it as unclear, or this is the most pedestrian remark I’ve ever read from you.

Now….on Stanton.

He paraphrases some scripture stating wives are to submit to husbands and husbands are to……etc. THEN he Prowdly says he “did what his wife told him to do” lest she bolt. Poor dude had to give up skateboarding and attend university to keep his woman. This is all manner of goofy.

That he attempts to relate to other men by sharing this mini-testimony, this, I’m-one’uh-da-guyz declaration of his initial rebellion followed by being tamed by his better 3/4 (wives have busted out beyond being the better half).

his description of the sexual economy and his reference to the men “bowling in the streets” in 1611 until a woman arrived saying dadgummit she wanted meat for stew TOMORROW , his reference to the thousands in a Denver stadium who laughed when asked if after 30 years of marriage the men were better men than they were before marriage….you are correct, he was not subtle. he was lift chasing to the nth degree.

@empathologism Indeed. The video is really something that needs circulated wildly and dealt with, lest people (like one critic I have right now) think this isn’t real. Of course the problem is that videos are hard to respond to directly in blog form without transcribing them first – it almost begets a vlog response. I know I want to do something about the video more directly sometime after I get done dealing with Eldredge (I still have the bulk of Wild At Heart to deal with – yes he uses the Davisson’s favorite phrase that starts with h), but I don’t know quite what form that will take. I have the stuff to do a video response (ala Bar Bar/Stardusk), but it’s almost counter-productive at times to use videos since you don’t know how many people are actually watching, and it’s so easy to miss certain things when they’re not in print. The problem with things such as this (and Mark Driscoll’s man-up sermon) is you almost have to transcribe them to do anything with them in print.

It’s actually the height of hubris to see so-called Christians telling the Christian God what he can and can’t do, as he creates and maintains the world, based upon human writings in a human book without an author.

A human book without an author? Does that even make sense?

Bible believing Christians aren’t telling God what He can and cannot do, we are telling others what He has told us. Listening to agnostics and evolutionists who have rejected the written word of God will not get us any closer to the truth of the matter.

This bears repeating:

The Bible is not just one book, but a collection of ancient texts and letters. 66 writings in three languages by 40 different witnesses spanning 1500 years all converging on the single theme of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as a sacrifice for sins that God’s people may be redeemed. Without out the collection of writings that have become the Bible it is doubtful we would even have an account of what has happened.

There are less than 12 copies of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars
There are less than 10 copies of Aristotle’s Poetics.
There are 0 copies of the writings of Socrates (what we have was written by Plato).

Yet there are over 6000 existing manuscript and manuscript portions of the New Testament alone. And the earliest of these are within 25 years of the originals.

Gallic Wars – over 1000 years after the original.
Poetics – over 1400 years after the original.
Homer’s Iliad- over 2100 years after the original.

Most people have no problem accepting that what we have from Julius Caesar, Aristotle, and Socrates is legitimate. It’s only when the Bible is being discussed do people suddenly get skeptical.

In addition to this, 23,000 archaeological digs have found nothing contradicting the facts laid out in the scriptures. Also, about 2000 prophecies have come to pass that were predicted in this collection of writings. Furthermore, the writings in the Bible make the claim to be from God (“Thus says the Lord” and the like), and there is nothing to refute this except a bunch of naysayers who have rejected the very words of Jesus Christ.

If there is an all powerful, all knowing God who cares for us (and there is), why wouldn’t He use a collection of writings that have with stood centuries of criticism to communicate with mankind?

I’ll close with a quote from W. Graham Scroggie:

“I begin by assuming that but for the Bible Christianity would not have survived. The Bible is the record of a divine revelation, and if there had been no record, no one, after the apostolic age, would have had any means of knowing what that revelation was. Oral tradition would have become more and more corrupt by omissions, additions, and other influences, until, finally, the truth would have been altogether lost.

This observation relates to the recorded New Testament revelation, but it must be evident that except for the Old Testament Writings the entire background of the New Testament revelation would never have been known, for Judaism had misread its own history.

The Biblical record is not the original revelation, but, had there been no record, we would never have known what the revelation had been, or, indeed, that there had been a revelation.

Christians do not worship the Bible, but the God who therein is revealed, but we do realize, or we ought to, that the Bible which makes the redeeming God known to us is, beyond all estimate, our most precious heritage.”

As in the message in the Bible? No it is not the Christian message. It is the message that many Christian’s in the West are communicating, but it is not the message from Christ (the Christian message). I know you know this, but others may not.

All bloggers who openly support marriage will have a very stark decision to make on whether to continue to do it (thereby throwing in with Stanton) or to oppose it.

If I may borrow your comment, would it be to far to say that all Christians who openly support “marriage” (as viewed by Stanton) may have a very stark decision to make on whether to continue to do it (thereby throwing in with Satan) or to oppose it?

Exactly. To others that don’t know better, even those in the “church”, this is the Christian message. Coincidentally, what Stanton said lines up exactly with what the radical feminist message is on marriage. To that end, this will reflect what Christianity represents onto the world, as Stanton is one of the vocal prototypical “Christians”.

Hence, the blogger I mentioned who called out Dalrock. Remember we can’t focus on what Scripture says marriage is, what we wish marriage to be, but on what marriage actually *is* if we want to see the truth. When one realizes what marriage actually *is*, it becomes incumbent on true Christians to unambiguously oppose it. When the false version is gone and a replacement is desired, then you can present the Scriptural solution.

As one can guess, the battle is over the meaning and representation of the word “marriage”. Right now, when “Christian marriage” is mentioned, the representation championed by Focus On The Family Female, Family Female Life, and so on is what is meant. Which means you have to deal with it in that light.

Coincidentally, what Stanton said lines up exactly with what the radical feminist message is on marriage. To that end, this will reflect what Christianity represents onto the world, as Stanton is one of the vocal prototypical “Christians”.

This is already happening. Unbeliever’s have been laughing at us for sometime because folks like Jim Daly and Glenn Stanton will agree with the Bible as they speak out against homosexual sin, but oppose the Bible as they support feminist views within marriage and the culture at large. But it’s even worse than that. The gospel itself is left out of the FOtF message, and (along with feminism) their perverted message is being exported globally.

Here is an example from a 2007 psychoheresy-aware letter posted online:

“We recently heard the president and CEO of Focus on the Family, Jim Daly, speak at a church in California. Daly gave an overly long and laborious talk on how he came out of a dysfunctional family as an obvious justification for the work of Focus on the Family. He spoke of the world-wide outreach of Focus on the Family and particularly mentioned the huge audience in China. According to Daly, Dobson is heard on the Chinese government radio, which reaches 200 million Chinese. According to Deanna Go of Focus on the Family Chinese Outreach, Dobson’s 90-second commentary is translated into Chinese and then broadcast in China. She also told us that there is a five-minute Focus on the Family broadcast in Chinese in Beijing, followed by the same five-minute broadcast in English that reaches 33 million people.

What the 233 million potential Chinese audience hears on Focus on the Family Chinese Outreach is totally without any mention of the only Name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12). There is no mention of sin, repentance, or salvation on the broadcasts. There is no mention of the eternal hope only found in Jesus. The messages are totally devoid of the Gospel.”

Whether or not it is connected to FOtF airing in China, China’s divorce rates have increased quite a lot in recent years.

FOtF claimed as of 2007 to be airing in 156 countries. Their messages are devoid of scripture and feminist to the core. Sadly the FOtF theme is being mis-represented as the Christian message around the globe, and apparently has been for several years.

Another example, the most recent issue of “Decision”, a magazine my wife receives because she gives to Samaritan’s Purse, from Billy Graham ministry, the cover talks about the US culture of death, has an ugly skull image (I may take a pic and post at my place). it then lists:

Abortion, ISIS, Euthanasia, Hollywood.

Its sensational of course in its digging into these topics.

Since we are way off topic….Ive signed my wife and I up for a marriage conference. Im not making a statement about anything personal in saying that. I was initially put off by it because of some things I recently wrote about. But I researched the group giving the conference and found it to not have red flags screaming off the pages. Its just Friday evening and saturday morning, not done by FotF or Family Life, and I may write about the program after. I mention this because its in these forums where the same cloying odor Stanton dredges up in the vid usually ends up clinging to your nostril hairs.

From the looks of things the Christian men need to troll the hell out of some “Churchian” web sites and but some doubt in the churchian fellowship. Just red pill all the time let nothing pass.
Hope you don’t mind me leaving some links to your site Dalrock.

Wow, don’t know how I got through the whole Stanton video, but I did. Could there be any better example of what swallowing the blue pill means? OTOH which pastors these days haven’t swallowed the blue pill?

When church officials and ear-tickled congregations in the US abandoned patriarchal marriage and embraced unequally, double-mindedly, antiscripturally yolking up with the civil rulers via marriage licenses, birth certificates, state incorporation, and 501c3 status, then Caesar-serving heretics like Stanton and Dobson’s corporation become the ungodly norm
that calls itself godly.
No doubt those Hebrews who served Ahab and Jezebel and other wicked rulers in ancient decadent Israel filled much the same ungodly societal function there and then as the Stantons and Dobsons do here and now, and no doubt those ancient false teachers also claimed to be serving the
Lord, just like today’s hireling shepherd incorporated church leaders.
Nothing new under the sun.

Wives owing their husbands sex? Naah… he’s got to earn it.
Wives owing their husbands permanence? Naah… he’s got to do what she wants, otherwise, sayonara.
Children being primarily the husband’s? Naah… “everyone knows” women, as the morally superior sex, are so much better at raising children, so the children are hers, not his.
Wives owing their husbands obedience? Naah… are you frikking kidding me???
Wives owing their husbands housework, etc.? Naah… you know how hard it is, he should “man up” and do his “fair share”.
Wives owing their husbands ANYTHING AT ALL? Why… he should thank his lucky stars she spreads her legs for him every once in a while… and thank her for what a better man she is making him.

With all this off the table, Stanton is shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU… that women can’t demand the price he says they should want (Marriage 2.0) in the sexual marketplace.

The wrongness of Stanton’s message doesn’t mean Christians should stop seeking to understand and preach the truth. That inherently means that errors will be made and someone is not the ultimate heretic for making them. They may be completely wrong and some may even stray into heresy, but we should be very cautious throwing around that idea too lightly. Many are not though and there way is the only way, which is likely just as detrimental to the overall Church as any other.

I remain committed to the institution of marriage, even though it is horridly flawed today and I would not attempt to force anyone into it. You cannot maintain a civilization without it thought, so it is far better to risk and except the losses that come rather than to never risk.

Even a recent post on AlphaGame dealt with this very issue. Many of you may not like him, but Vox is far from Stanton in the key points here.

God initiated marriage. Modern man may have perverted it, but the answer does not lie in running from it.

All bloggers who openly support marriage will have a very stark decision to make on whether to continue to do it (thereby throwing in with Stanton) or to oppose it.

I would completely disagree with this. I believe Dalrock even favors true marriage. If that is accurate, he does not need to turn against it in order to stand against people like Stanton.

The point is denying the rot and breaking from those who support it.

The tough thing today is that some of the message can be accurate, but its use is wrong. Are you going to stop exercising just because someone gets hurt doing so? Bad experiences do mean we should investigate how they happened, but that doesn’t mean a core principle is wrong. It is almost always the improper application of that principle.

The idea of “evolution” as it is used today, requires shifting between species, not refinement within them. The latter is definitely happening and part of the system. The latter has never been observed and thinking it is the mechanism, guided or not, defies logic. That is why no one needs to say “God could do it that way” to be reasonable.

The idea of “special creation” involves direct formation of fully formed species from inanimate matter. This has never been observed and thinking it is the mechanism, guided or not, defies logic. That is why no one needs to say “God could do it that way” to be reasonable.

I remain committed to the institution of marriage, even though it is horridly flawed today and I would not attempt to force anyone into it. You cannot maintain a civilization without it thought,…

Committed to the institution of marriage … yes, However:

1) What is being practiced today is not marriage (certainly not as defined in the Bible), so why should anyone (especially Christians) align themselves with it? What ever it is we do, we would do well to consider moving away from the ways of the world.

2) You cannot maintain a civilization by undermining a core pillar in a given society. Families cannot function without men. Increasingly fewer men will participate in families without incentives to do so.

3) The sooner this perverse impostor of marriage is destroyed, the better off civilization will be.

Civilization is already in moral decay in the West, and IMO will continue to do so until civility is lost or some external force reinstates some sense of morality.

…so it is far better to risk and except the losses that come rather than to never risk.

I could not disagree more. A civilization that makes a mockery of marriage deserves to perish, and only a fool would role the dice and accept the losses that come in a rigged game like the one that is being played today.

Fine, Oscar, you want to get technical, let’s call it MOSAIC or even ABRAHAMIC marriage.
I don’t dare call it “biblical” because most people using that word
A: do not read their Bible
and
B: they have a counterfeit bible that they think is the real Bible.
Satan is the Great Counterfeiter, after all.
I am very capable of getting into a debate over which lineage of manuscripts is today’s legitimate Word of God (the Antiochan), but this forum is not the place.
Suffice to say, the term “biblical” is far too vague an adjective to rely upon nowadays for these reasons.
Considering the confusing (satanic) proliferation of so many “bible versions” nowadays, this is the rational
approach to take about the fuzzy word “biblical.”

The wrongness of Stanton’s message doesn’t mean Christians should stop seeking to understand and preach the truth. That inherently means that errors will be made and someone is not the ultimate heretic for making them. They may be completely wrong and some may even stray into heresy, but we should be very cautious throwing around that idea too lightly. Many are not though and there way is the only way, which is likely just as detrimental to the overall Church as any other.

Brad, This doesn’t really make sense. Its a diluted comment that is analogous to the female temdency to make conciliatory remarks like, well everyone has some wrong views and only the ones who fail to realize it are wrong, or “its 50/50″…..like that.

You impute things when you say “doesn’t mean Christians should stop seeking to understand and preach the truth”….where did that thought even originate? To whom/to what are you asserting this as a rebuttal?

Male participation with marriage and family is MGTOW/family man with a surrogate and then as a single dad marries some skank if he just has to. The kids will love it and he will be in charge of his home. (no hostages clouding his decisions, trust me on this one his wife won’t know why but she will as best as she can tell “love” him)

I’ve been there, done that. The kids love it, yes. But the “wife” is not invested because it wasn’t her womb the children came out of, and she will favor – blatantly – those children that did come out of her womb. Your sons she sees as rivals to hers, and your daughters she sees as rivals to herself. Yes, there’s no “threatpoint” because she can’t take your kids. But there are other issues. You need to have only sons and she needs to have only daughters for this to have a chance – and even then it still might fail.

Oscar,
All attempts to “biblically” re-establish the father as the real and effectual head of his own family are doomed to fail and would only be half-measures unless the PROPERTY RIGHTS of the fruit of that father’s own loins, his children, be also rendered back over to the father, as God intended it.
When God established a nation of his own, ancient Israel, he established that the PROPERTY RIGHTS of the children belonged to the father. THIS, as nothing else ever could, made the father the real HEAD of that family.
As with every other debate, once you cut through all the decorations and the b.s., it always comes down to CONTRACTS and PROPERTY RIGHTS.
Today’s “christian churches” have so mal-interpreted Romans 13 out of their confusing tangle of modern “bible versions” that they have in fact rendered EVERYthing over to Caesar–not just their own children (marriage license contract, etc.), but also even their own churches (state incorporation and 501c3 tax-exempt status).
This tradition of Abramic/Mosaic type of marriage union has only very recently been cast aside, historically speaking, in our own nation.
To wit:
Did George Washington submit to a marriage license to marry Martha? No.
Did Abraham Lincoln submit to a marriage license to marry Mary Todd? No.
You take the famous 1870s novel by Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Examine how the town and the judges reacted when Huck’s abusive, alcoholic father wanted his child back.
They gave it to him.
Now, this was no doubt more satire from Twain to show how Twain himself favored the creation of social services and social ladies to come take children away from abusive parents. But Twain was oblivious to the importance of contracts and he of course didn’t care a wit about the God of the Scriptures, either.
We see what Twain’s ideal has become. We see it today. He thought Social Lady was a better option. So today we get Social Lady and marriage licenses and birth certificates, and every father is terrorized and powerless.
But that scene from that novel serves to remind us just how recently it was public policy in this country that a father held property rights over his own offspring. This wasn’t a perfect system—it was up to Huck to run away from his abusive father on his own, and guess what, he did so. Twain missed the importance of that even in his own writing, as he focused too much on creating the satirical situation that would make the public wish we had Social Ladies.
So you call it “biblical,” but I say, explain yourself further, because this word has become tragically confusing in our day. Blame Westcott and Hort and their disciples (and their superiors), but it has become confusing indeed.
If you mean by “biblical” what the U.S. was practicing up until the late 1800s, and what soon ended thereafter with the advent of the modern marriage license and its popularity and all that is assumed and ignored about it, then fine.
But just to say “biblical” ain’t cutting it anymore.
Too many modern evangelicals have given away even their own churches and forgotten their own history, and they have erected women as heads of their own families and have terrorized and emasculated fathers, and they have made movies glorifying this, movies called FIREPROOF and others, they too call this “biblical.”
That’s a problem, Oscar.
That’s a big problem in communication.
That’s why I prefer “patriarchal,” but I see your point about muslims and whatnot, so I could go with “mosaic” or “abrahamic.”
Another thing to consider: When even the New Testament scribes, Paul and Peter, and Jesus Himself, were advising about marriage, they were not addressing an audience of fathers who lived in terror of a Roman Social Lady coming and taking away their child at the first phone call of a nosey or miffed snooping neighbor. Or even if the man’s own wife turned him in? No, not even the Romans were intrusive like that about an individual man’s family. As long as you didn’t try overthrowing the Roman Empire, do you think the Roman government under the Caesars cared a wit about what some one individual father living in Judea or Greece did to his own offspring?
No, it’s only in our Orwellian day, in our surveillance-state age, do we emasculated castrottos calling ourselves “fathers” have to live in such fear of the civil government coming and taking “our” children away, “our” children for whom we legally signed away our own property rights, when dumb castrottos got married with a state marriage license. We married Social Lady as well. They don’t tell us that, of course. But that’s what happens.
Duped evangelicals are calling this too “biblical” nowadays because of a perverted rendition of Romans 13.
I trust that is now what you mean by “biblical,” Oscar?

“So you call it “biblical,” but I say, explain yourself further, because this word has become tragically confusing in our day.”

To which I would reply, search the words “marriage”, “husband”, “wife”, “child(ren)” and “family” in Strong’s Concordance or https://www.biblegateway.com/, read all the verses that come up (plus the entire chapter in which each verse is found) then get back to me if you have any questions.

There’s no point in me “explain[ing] myself further”. It’s all there in the Word, and I certainly can’t improve upon it, though I think I can help someone understand it if they don’t already. On the other hand, if they won’t even read the source material written by the likes of Moses, Solomon, Peter and Paul, there’s very little chance they’ll listen to an ordinary man like me.

As for calling it “Abrahamic” or “Mosaic” marriage, that still leaves open the question of what we do with the New Testament, of which Abraham and Moses knew nothing.

The idea of “special creation” involves direct formation of fully formed species from inanimate matter. This has never been observed and thinking it is the mechanism, guided or not, defies logic. That is why no one needs to say “God could do it that way” to be reasonable.

Empath, the statement was made that we must either fully support Stanton’s message or completely abandon the idea of marriage. Neither is correct. That was my point.

He has had a few parts that are true in what I have listened to so far, but the overall push is in the completely wrong direction and I see plenty I would disagree with and oppose if asked in public. That doesn’t mean talking on the topic should only focus on how bad marriage is. Marriage 2.0 is horrid, but that is not true marriage and I will call it false whenever I have the chance.

Yeah, Brad, I caught that about BrainyOne too.
Material-Darwinists have a habit out of assuming that their claim that life spontaneously “evolved” out of inorganic rocks is somehow less of a miracle than a Creator spontaneously creating life out of inorganic rocks.
It’s amazing how they gloss right over that, but they do; they almost always do.

For me, personally, I can understand why a non-believer in God would adopt the burgeoning pan-spermaic view of Francis Crick and others, the view that some ancient alien life form started the first “seeds” of life on earth and this somehow “evolved,” as I see that such panspermaic Darwinists are at least attempting to put off the logical necessity of an ultimate Creator for the time being, rather than to defy or ignore logic and all observable proofs whatsoever. But to anymore hold to an altogether materialist/naturalist Darwinian view, in our day and age, that organic life somehow spontaneously “evolved” from inorganic matter, on their own—these people aren’t even worth debating anymore. A neodarwinian panspermaist, I could see debating. That would be interesting, and they could score some good points in their apparent favor, I do concede. But a neo-darwinian materialist who says organic life came from inorganic rocks, all by chance, with no outside intelligence?
Nah, those folks aren’t even worth debating anymore. They’re like the Ptolemaic priests who still clung to power for a time even after the advent of Galileo.

Abraham “knew nothing” of the New Testament, Oscar?
So he had no idea that God had intended that the Savior of all mankind was to come through him and through Isaac then?
Did you really mean that??
Or were you being too vague.

He has had a few parts that are true in what I have listened to so far, but the overall push is in the completely wrong direction and I see plenty I would disagree with and oppose if asked in public.

That’s what makes the ideology so insidious. You’ll never here a dyke feminist (or her conservative handler) come out and say “We need to run fathers out of homes!” Instead, they always bring up something legitimate. Usually its a serious problem — domestic violence, for example — which is generalized, and peddled as though it were something that was happening all the time and everywhere, as opposed to the reality, which is that it only really exists in a tiny minority of the most dysfunctional and fucked-up marriages.

You see this same dishonest process over and over. “One in four women will be sexually assaulted while on this campus” for example… My answer to this lie, lately, is that we need to fire the entire administration of the school immediately, as they’re clearly running something more akin to a Bosnian rape-camp than a university. That usually shuts the caterwauling up, but only for a minute. It’s preposterous, of course, but the instinct is to feel sympathy for rape victims, and so normal, healthy people are manipulated into doing whatever these idiots want.

That doesn’t mean talking on the topic should only focus on how bad marriage is. Marriage 2.0 is horrid, but that is not true marriage and I will call it false whenever I have the chance.

This is the most effective way to open eyes, in my opinion. Ask any dude how marriage of today compares to the one his grandfather enjoyed, when he was the master of most of his house, and got the respect and admiration that came with getting out every day and bringing home the money to run the house. There’s no comparison.

Its not a stop along the way….marriage…in terms of our faith and our human foundational constructs that intend or attempt to follow God’s order. Its neither a simple matter of who is the boss, who submits, who is the head, all that.

Divorce is a root cause. yes I understand that behind divorce are more root causes, ultimately the king of root causes and father of lies. but in a sort of functional chronological sense, tracking back flesh-and-blood done things, divorce is where so many paths overlap its safe in my mind to call divorce a root cause of social pathology. We can equivocate about whether its the lack of fathers, the lack of fathers and mothers, the lack of familism, whatever, but the contemporary construct that sits in the right road and mocks families (women) to turn right or left is the Drakkar smelling Virginia Slims smoking beast of lies called divorce.

That’s why I say Brad that you trivialize it, in effect, when you even hint that someone may indeed be wrong on marriage doctrine but they may be right on other things , even “more important” things? like the very soul’s disposition?

Sorry man, but they are not often mutually exclusive or even separate things. The present weakness in mankind being both exploited AND church-coddled is none other than divorce. That he is wrong on that doesn’t mean that he errs on preaching the trinity, or his dispensationalist views are amiss, or that he is sola scriptura or not, or that his tribulation pictures are sensationalized, or that he is a prosperity focused parasite, or any of those things. it means worse!

Those things are overdone and could be deemphasized, left to the endless doctrinal bickering that so many Christians seem to enjoy. The carnage from those is nonexistent. The carnage from divorce is only reaching a point where you cannot find a community insular enough to avoid it.

I just watched the video and I will say that he has some points exactly on. The modern system costs women more than they realize. He completely ignores the elephant in the room however, not saying a peep about how women “benefit” from the modern arrangement. His coverage of women favoring monogamy is a glaring example. They only favor the man staying faithful to her, as long as she wants him. He says nothing about the failure of the modern system to hold women’s base instincts in check.

He does need to examine the Scriptures he avoided covering at all in his talk. They note that sin is a problem with all humans, not just males. Assuming women are “more mature and virtuous” (I believe that was a direct quote) is completely idiotic as the life of my youngest daughter would demonstrate to him. She is effectively ruining her own life on her own. Some men may help out, but it is completely her choice.

This clearly seems an issue of taking the blue pill and not seeing the world as it really is. The dangerous thing is his platform at FotF and other areas.

I am sure others will pick apart what he said better, but his correct points are almost bad since they may sway some into believing the idiotic things he covers and his overall focus.

That’s why I say Brad that you trivialize it, in effect, when you even hint that someone may indeed be wrong on marriage doctrine but they may be right on other things , even “more important” things? like the very soul’s disposition?

Salvation is far more important and many are right on that and not on the other things. I would agree that these horrid doctrines can cause much harm and should be opposed, but I have also learned that things are not always as clear cut as one side, whatever the side, presents. Proverbs talks about one side seeming right until the other side presents its case. That is my point here.

Note that I am not saying Stanton should be supported. I believe he should be opposed, but we must not just charge after anything he says in his message because the overall push is wrong. We must always evaluate truth, realize we are human as well and pursue our convictions with zeal, but tempered with love.

Clearly Jesus did directly confront the religious leaders of His day, but we need to think it over before we decide it is our job to call other a “brood of vipers,” for example. The times He did that are limited and He had authority over them. He also chastised His Church (in the letters in Revelation), but He had leadership over them then too.

This is not a squishy, “never say anything,” idea, but one of being much more cautious about declaring someone something very extreme.

That said, I have not had too many good things to say lately for shows I used to enjoy, including FotF, FLT, etc. I was even surprised that Tony Evans said in a recent sermon that it was the man’s fault if his wife was not in order, as if he could manipulate her into that proper order. He is normally straight shooting, but is way off on that part.

I note that about vagueness because, as a rule, VAGUENESS is destroying evangelicals today.
Vagueness is what makes today’s evangelicals oblivious to what is really enslaving them: adhesion contracts with the civil rulers for both them and for their churches. One perfect illustration of this phenomenon, among many others today, is the so-called “gay marriage debate.” Evangelicals are all up in arms over that issue, and they are all misguided, because they are all focused on the wrong issues, the vague emotions of the issue, rather than on the meat, the legal reality meat of the issue–and for that one also it is the state marriage license that is at the heart of it. When christians rendered God’s institution of marriage over to the State via a legal contract called the marriage license, then the State is free to let gorillas marry chickens, it is the State prerogative. But still you have evangelicals, some who are vague because they don’t read their bibles at all, some because they have counterfeit bibles, and others who read the fine print and the original Greek but miss the big picture (such as if their fine print they are laboring over is even stemming from the authentic lineage of manuscripts, for example). And then you’ve got the problem of evangelicals even deigning to use the word “gay” and have their ideological opponents dictate the language of the debate—all of this is to miss the main, important points.
And evangelicals today, at least in the U.S. nowadays, are the undisputed MASTERS at doing that: missing the main point at things: They rail against homosexual marriage, yet they themselves rendered control over marriage to the State; They warn against a day when governments will dictate what they can and can’t say from a pulpit from licensed, 501c3, state-incorporated churches in which they have signed contracts that they won’t say anything the State doesn’t want them to say; They tell husbands and fathers to “man up” and heap upon him with their hireling shepherd marriage counseling all of the RESPONSIBILITIES of a head of a household while effectively endorsing the wholesale stripping those duped men of any of the AUTHORITIES of a head of a household, again, largely because of the worldly contracts these churches have signed that requires that they do so; Their trad-con pulpit parrots like to talk endlessly about the “love of Christ” for all mankind and the “doing away” of the Old Testament, meanwhile they cherry-pick and embrace the Old Testament teachings when they trip over themselves in their idolatrous patriotism towards national warfare, and in teaching that their members “tithe” to the church despite the fact that the church has no Levite working there whatsoever, and God mandated that the “tithe” only be given to a Levite.
Etc, etc.
Vagueness and inattention to what is important is killing today’s evangelicals, just killing them. Metaphorically, of course, for now.
The real thing, that’s coming.
But at least, like in China today, the “Real Church” of Christ will be more obvious then, because so will the persecution: It will be the underground one here too.
For now, here in the U.S., the persecution is perhaps as sinister–perhaps as worse–but is more in the form of mind control and propaganda.

I think BrainyOne’s belief is that God did or could have used species-to-species evolution to bring what we have today, rather than starting things out. Or “Goo to You, by Way of the Zoo” as a writer noted a long while back. I find that equally as unbelievable as believing that rocks turned into living beings, but BrainyOne can clarify if I have his point wrong.

From the looks of things the Christian men need to troll the hell out of some “Churchian” web sites and but some doubt in the churchian fellowship. Just red pill all the time let nothing pass.

An excellent idea, I will grant you, but unfortunately churchian web sites tend to give feminist ones a run for their money when it comes to censoring comments and banning commenters that run counter to the prevailing opinion. I highly doubt that most red-pill comments based on biblical truths would very long see the light of day on such sites. Still, I suppose that there’s nothing left to lose in trying.

Empath, who said I was trying to be conciliatory? I was merely noting truth. I stand for that no matter how uncomfortable it is. Saying a message is the worst thing in the world gives it undue power and takes an incorrect focus.

Life is a tough balancing issue. We must decide when to pursue and when to allow idiocy to go on. In this case I would strongly oppose the idiotic parts of the message, especially the sole focus on men as the problem, but I would not negate the value of telling women to keep their sex to a sole partner.

The latter is beneficial to all. It is a good message, if put in the context of getting back to the one man – one woman standard God started the world with.

“If they are annoyed about men refusing to man up now, imagine what they will feel if they think their hard-working strong and independent womanhood is supporting the manboys.”

… to which Jc replied…

“Feminism will make the argument that it’s a new version of the”pay gap” when more of women’s money goes into the system than they get out.”

… to which I will add…

When women make more than men they will stop referring to the “pay gap” and seamlessly replace it with the “work gap,” whereby they will bellyache about how “Teh Pay-tree-ark-ee” forces women to work hard so men do not have to. Indeed, in those cohorts where this is already the case, they have already begun to do so. The fact that this situation will be the exact converse of the current situation (about which they claim that any difference in total pay is prima facia evidence that the harder-working sex oppresses the lower-earning sex) will be of no concern to them.

Your beliefs are like the Maya’s. You don’t know what you don’t know and you don’t understand that you have only a limited grasp of external reality, so you construct a story that adequately explains your observations and your beliefs. I call that pattern fitting and it’s a defining human trait.

To which I reply: That sounds like an excellent description of Darwinism.

Empath, the statement was made that we must either fully support Stanton’s message or completely abandon the idea of marriage. Neither is correct. That was my point.

He has had a few parts that are true in what I have listened to so far, but the overall push is in the completely wrong direction and I see plenty I would disagree with and oppose if asked in public. That doesn’t mean talking on the topic should only focus on how bad marriage is. Marriage 2.0 is horrid, but that is not true marriage and I will call it false whenever I have the chance.

It doesn’t matter what you, or I, or empath, or Dalrock, or TFH, or feministhater, or Cail, or Cane, or SSM, or Elspeth, or any of us call marriage 2.0 (false or otherwise.) The only thing that matters is what society thinks of it as a whole as it is society that determines what is lawful and what isn’t. We are at that point now because our society has fully turned its back on God and His laws. It’s over.

I showed my father-in-law the marriage rate statistics this long weekend and showed him the numbers as to where we are now (for the first time in our country’s history with more single people over the age of 18 than married ones) and he out-and-out REFUSED to even consider that this was a matter of men responding to marriage dis-incentives. He just shrugged his shoulders, said that men were just too fussy, and that I was to be careful because think about how awful my wife would feel if she thought that I didn’t see any merit in marriage (2.0.) That is what MGTOW are up against, opponents who will PERSONALIZE this in an effort to reframe that which they know they can’t logically defend!

You think feminists or really ANYONE in your community (church, secular work, or otherwise) gives a damn what you think of marriage 2.0? They don’t. They don’t care at all and they would never-ever vote in legislators who would be willing to change divorce laws to make them more in line with God’s teachings. You can call it false all you want, you are NOT going to change any of their minds.

Given the above paragraph, the only rational response for a good (single) Christian man who wants to remain a good Christian because his eternal soul is more important than the 90 years he is alive on this rock, is to GHOW. Don’t marry. At all. Opt out, go Galt. God th Father will understand. Christ our Lord and Savior would approve!

The point went right over your head didn’t it. OK, let me try again. EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT you made against guided evolution could also be made against special creation. It’s never been directly observed. It is “illogical” (mere argument by assertion) for God to do it that way. It’s just “unbelievable” for God to do it that way (an argument to ignorance).

In fact, God normally operates through secondary causes in nature. He could cause it to rain by miraculously poofing drops of water in the sky. But He doesn’t – there is the water cycle of evaporation, condensation, etc. There is no a priori reason to think – if one doesn’t accept Genesis as revelation to be interpreted literally – that God created new types of life forms by poofing them into existence either rather than operating through secondary causes. Simply thinking this “unbelievable” does not constitute a logically sound argument against this.

JF,

You didn’t actually bother to read the thread, did you. You just reflexively labeled me a “neo-Darwinist” even though I specifically stated I do not hold to a materialist/atheist worldview and specifically stated that I do not believe abiogenesis occurred (I termed the probability of it happening “infinitesimal”); this is par for the course with me but it is still annoying. Actually (in agreement with panspermists) I think the “building blocks” of life were present at the earth’s formation, and current scientific evidence supports this view (e.g. microorganisms dated very, very close to the earth’s beginning) but I do not believe aliens were necessary to put them there since I believe in God. I think these building blocks contained, within them, all the necessary information for the eventual evolution of all the life forms which existed on the planet. You may disagree with this, but this is not “Darwinism” and it is not a priori ridiculous.

Empath, who said I was trying to be conciliatory? I was merely noting truth. I stand for that no matter how uncomfortable it is. Saying a message is the worst thing in the world gives it undue power and takes an incorrect focus.

Life is a tough balancing issue. We must decide when to pursue and when to allow idiocy to go on. In this case I would strongly oppose the idiotic parts of the message, especially the sole focus on men as the problem, but I would not negate the value of telling women to keep their sex to a sole partner.

The latter is beneficial to all. It is a good message, if put in the context of getting back to the one man – one woman standard God started the world with.

…that’s it. Telling women to keep their sex to a sole partner does nothing as almost all of our women are suffering from the curse of Eve (in FULL rebellion of God’s Law.) The only authority they recognize is whatever makes their ‘gina tingle and they have worked very hard over the last 50 years to make sure the laws of this nation empower their ‘gina and butt tinglement. What you need to do is show them the marriage statistics (at a young age) and explain to them (at a young age) that if they do no better than their mom’s did (or their aunts or whoever) they don’t get a husband…. ever. Actually strike that. You don’t tell them anything. What the girls need to hear is the truth coming from a woman who has hit the wall, regrets her mistakes, and warnings to them nto to do what SHE did. Maybe that might work because they are not going to listen to you (or any man for that matter.) Good luck finding that cock-riding carosel rider who is now married to her cats who understands her situation and is fully willing to try and help the next generation before it is too late for them.

I can imagine. That is why the only way to engineer the collapse of the femchurch is to treat it as a Sunday Morning Nightclub.

1) PUAs get to have sex with church sluts.
2) Church sluts get to have sex with PUAs.
3) Church manginas get to pay the bills!

Everybody wins! Everybody reaches their full aspirations, especially the mangina, who gets to man up, step up, and increase a woman’s pursuit of her own goals via his financial assistance.

The following dialogue (of course) has never occurred, ever, anywhere, in any church, at anytime in all of history. But I’m sure we’d all love to be a fly on the wall if it ever did happen…. but I think this does a pretty good job describing how hopeless it is for MGTOW in the world of churchianity. The two are simply… incompatible.

(Churchian Pastor) “Mike! Hi. Nice to see you so bright and early this Sunday morning. Since its about 20 minutes before the meeting, any chance you and I can just talk for a minute in my office?”

(Red Pill Mike) “Sure Pastor, absolutely.”

(Churchian Pastor) “Mike…. um, you graduated college about 3 years ago. And you have a nice career now.”

(Red Pill Mike) “Yes.”

(Churchian Pastor) “You are a home owner. You are intelligent, good looking young man, I have to ask you…. are you happy in your single life?”

(Red Pill Mike) “Honestly, no. I am very lonely. I desire women. I can’t stop thinking about them. I burn with passion pastor. I bitterly masturbate every night to keep from burning.”

(Red Pill Mike) “Two reasons. First one, I have never in my life met even one good Christian woman who would have me. I expect that in my lifetime there will be none.”

(Churchian Pastor) “We have many sisters in this church that are unmarried and I’m quite sure, are approachable Mike. I know for a fact that quote a few of them cast a longing eye towards you…”

(Red Pill Mike) “They are not virgin pastor. I will only marry a virgin wife.”

(Churchian Pastor) “Well…. okay why?”

(Red Pill Mike) “Because I want my wife to pair bond with me. If I am not her first, she can’t pair bond. It would make me sad and miserable to think that my wife had her hymen broken by another man’s penis. I want to be her only one so she will not have anyone to come me to, she will not be curious about what she might be missing. I think there might actually be Bible passages that stipulate…”

(Churchian Pastor) “…alright lets not get into the passages, I just… I had no idea that was so important to you?”

(Red Pill Mike) “Now you do.”

(Churchian Pastor) “Okay but what if she repents for her…. (almost afraid to say it) … sin?”

(Red Pill Mike) “I certainly hope she does. But that doesn’t mean she gets to marry me or any man for that matter.”

(Churchian Pastor) “Don’t you think you are being a little unfair to women in general, writing them all off for marriage potential just for their mistakes that they made long before they met you?”

(Red Pill Mike) “No. Why should I settle for marital unhappiness? I have never heard you say in a sermon that women should settle in marriage.”

(Churchian Pastor) “Okay, well lets just say hypothetically that you meet this virgin woman who desires you, you said there were two reasons you wouldn’t marry?”

(Red Pill Mike) “Yes pastor. Of course. The laws in our country means that she could divorce me the instant I say I do and she entitled to half of my earning power for the rest of my life, not to mention ownership of my house that I bought before we were married. If she doesn’t want to sleep with me she can just see a judge and I am financially responsible for her support for the rest of my life. Whats worse, if she doesn’t want to sleep with me she can just call the police and have me removed from my own home with only her lying words stating I absued her.”

(Red Pill Mike) “You said hypothetically. Hypothetically, there is a chance that this could happen to me should I ever marry. I don’t want to risk that. I’d rather be single, worship God, live dafe and sound in my own home, and jerk off when I burn. That way I can remain a good Christian man and not be resentful towards my sisters in Christ. It’s a two-fer!”

(Churchian Pastor, really uncomfortable) “Well. I guess I just don’t know what to say to this.”

(Red Pill Mike) “You don’t have to say anything. Are we done here?”

(Churchian Pastor) “No. Mike, I think it might be best if you start looking for another church.”

Oh, wow. I just listened to the Stanton video. I couldn’t watch it (too long for that) so I don’t have the benefit of seeing body language and what not.

That was the most feminist thing I’ve ever heard. It’s precisely why my wifely awakening coincided almost to the second with when I realized that most Christian wife/parenting/relationship materials are nothing more than things that encourage wives to remain in the sin they are in and beats down husbands.

I will say this about marriage making men “better”. I don’t think the Stantons of the world realize that it’s not marriage or the woman that makes a man better. It’s the introduction of responsibility and purpose into their lives. It just so happens that until very recently marriage was the thing that provided such channels for most men. Correlative, yes. Causative, no.

And then there is the fact that some men (alpha or not) are bent toward being family men. They don’t need a woman to bring it out of them. hey need to meet a woman worthy of them bothering to re-channel their energy and resources. When they think they have found her (rightly or wrongly), then they redirect.

I have heard variations on the theme of a woman helping a man grow up, but this was extreme in ways I have never heard of. He basically said that single men are pariahs and married men who don’t obey their wives will be failures. Again, wow…

I have heard variations on the theme of a woman helping a man grow up, but this was extreme in ways I have never heard of. He basically said that single men are pariahs and married men who don’t obey their wives will be failures. Again, wow…

Follow the money. Stanton wants to be paid. He makes more money towing the feminist-churchianity line than to tow the Biblical line. If he spoke Biblically, he would be preaching to no one. Then he doesn’t make any money and he kids don’t eat.

Women have threat point on their husbands. They pick the church. The husbands can either submit or the wife can get his house and resources. So of course, they are going to go to a church where SHE hears what she WANTS to hear. That is pure churchianity. Which is why people like Stanton and Driscoll and others of their ilk say what they say. They have to, they need to eat.

I make my living seeing the “big picture” and figuring out how to protect it. It is not smart to only look at the big things and not take the small parts as well. Do so if you wish, but that is the way to have major holes, whatever the topic.

I would also note that I am one of the few using my real name. I suspect someone could find me with my picture as well. I stand behind what I say. I may be off at times, but that is not as much as some think.

I make my living seeing the “big picture” and figuring out how to protect it. It is not smart to only look at the big things and not take the small parts as well. Do so if you wish, but that is the way to have major holes, whatever the topic.

I am really happy to hear you say this because in the “big picture” marriage 2.0 has completely and utterly destroyed marriage. Fact is marriage 2.0 is not marriage AT ALL (in any sense) that any single red pill man would ever enter into be him Christian, Jewish, LDS, or Atheist. Please list any benefits that marraige 2.0 offers the single red pill man? Because I can’t think or any.

Really what we are saying here (those who believe in marriage because we have daughters and we want them married because we are greedy for grand children) is that we don’t want men to swallow that red pill. The minute he does, he sees marriage 2.0 for what it is, nothing that is in his own best interest. I don’t know about you Brad but that scares the crap out of me. I assume it scares you because I think you have daughters and you see the “big picture.”

The more self aware men become as to what may befall them entering into marriage 2.0, the lower and lower our percentage of marriage adults will go the more and MORE marriage will be a luxury reserved ONLY for the women with the best looks, the best education, and the greatest amount of family financial resources behind her (a dowry for lack of a better term.) Charles Murray wrote about this very phenomenom in Coming Apart. I suggest you read it.

Men are getting smarter. As Dalrock stated in his great post “…worse than a strike…”, men are responding to the disincentives. They have ingested the red pill unknowingly. And they are (collectively) opting out without even knowing there is a movement that tells them to do this. The response on the part of women is to read books (like the example below) to try and “trick men” into marriage….

…against their own best interest. You’ll note Brad, there is not a single book writen for men to tell them what they have to do to help them catch a wife, not a book that will sell since all men already know what they have to do (and be) to get married.

Well now boss, I’d sort of resolved to talk less and listen more in 2015.
Have to say though, this was just how I like my whiskey, deliciously sour. Particularly para. 4.

My grandpa, Tam Snr., always maintained that women should of course be paid exactly the same as men. Even in the depths of the Depression (the first one, I now must learn to call it).
Going rate for the job , it’s only fair ..
.. “If they can stand up to the work, that is” (grim twinkle).
Knowing fine that they, nor any gentleman, couldn’t face his shitty fitter’s mate’s job in the marine diesel (torpedo boats) works he’d blagged his way into after the Kaiser’s War.
(RFC, groundcrew at first, underage, 16 and all of that; anything to get away from the brickyard he’d started in at 12, shoving trucks of clay around in the endless peeing rain, by hand).
Still being flogged on like a donkey for pennies, but at least he was indoors.

I always agree and amplify, and insist that any enterprise hiring women should be forced, by the full weight of The Law, to pay them double whatever a man gets. Always have done, since I realised that it was just so much greedy, lazy, bourgie whingeing (about forty years ago).

I’m not as cynical as you are, IBB. I don’t believe these guys say the things they say for the money. I believe that they believe what they say. Sincerely.

Nah. They just sincerely want money. They are the new Jim Bakkers of today, the new Jerry Falwells, just preaching what feminist churchianity wants to hear to keep the money rolling in. They are not being hypocritical the way Jim Bakker was, just being Judas Iscariot-like pursuing the 40 pieces of silver. They just feel justified in pursuign the silver because unlike Judas, they have wives and kids.

I have said it once and I’ll say it again, only lay pastors are good pastors, pastors who preach only the Bible while earning all their income to support their families, elsewhere. You earn money from preaching, you instantly have a spiritual conflict of interest. Be a lay pastor. If their congregation rejects what the lay pastors say because the women in churchianity don’t want to hear it, fine. No problem. They are free to leave and take their tithes with them. Preach to an empty church and go to your secular job Monday morning. But at least hold fast to God’s Law.

I don’t think the Stantons of the world realize that it’s not marriage or the woman that makes a man better. It’s the introduction of responsibility and purpose into their lives. It just so happens that until very recently marriage was the thing that provided such channels for most men.

Appearance vs. Essence. Part of the reason the housing policies were put in place was the thought that home ownership makes people more responsible, etc, etc. The bubble burst on that one proving it wrong. It wasn’t that owning a house made people more responsible and virtuous, it’s that the more responsible and virtuous people happened to own houses. The only thing Stanton’s viewpoint (and to a lesser extent this one, as it is a watered down restatement of his) has done is unleash destruction for people marrying that have no business doing so in the first place. If one isn’t responsible and purposeful, they will never be by the introduction of either marriage or home ownership.

Excellent post ballista! Yes, it is appearance vs essence. One must be responsible first before they can be married. Being married does not make one responsible. You can use this concept with everything (including and especially voting rights.)

The only thing Stanton’s viewpoint (and to a lesser extent this one, as it is a watered down restatement of his)

I don’t know how my statement is a watered down restatement of Stanton’s, Ballista. Unlike him, I believe that men can find responsibility and purpose through other channels than marriage. Soldiers and men who do missionary work spring to mind right away.

But there is really no use in denying that for many men (not all!) embarking on marriage and family provide those channels as well. Unless you just emphatically disagree with that. If that’s the case I can see where the chasm is.

@Elspeth You’re saying the same thing he is, except in a less radical way. You’re saying that men become responsible and find purpose through the act of marriage – in other words, they aren’t that before they marry. I’m saying that if a man is neither of those, he won’t be by getting married. Marriage or anything else one brings to mind is only an occasion to demonstrate that those qualities already exist.

Ironically, in missing this truth, most of the marriage advocates miss that you encourage marriage by not actively promoting marriage. You build responsibility in men and women too (marriages are failing primarily because women are the irresponsible ones being unleashed with god-like power, not men), by acting with them outside of pushing them into something they’re not ready for.

You build character and responsibility by raising them to expect it, and then by keeping them away from things they aren’t ready for, marriage being one of those. Driving for instance. Teens prove to their parents that they are responsible in other ways, then prove they can handle driving with a responsible adult, and then they prove it with the written and practical tests required for licensure. The teen is never just handed the keys and told “you’ll become a responsible driver eventually Have fun.”. They have to prove themselves. Marriage used to be like this until the idea of romance took full bloom and this confusion came about.

You’re saying that men become responsible and find purpose through the act of marriage – in other words, they aren’t that before they marry. I’m saying that if a man is neither of those, he won’t be by getting married.

Well I certainly didn’t mean it that way, because it’s not what I believe.Of course irresponsible flight people shouldn’t be getting married. That should go without saying. I do however believe that people sometimes can -and do- dig deep and rise to the occasion in life. And that the foundations laid (if they were laid) often show up when demanded even if the man or woman aren’t displaying them fully at the moment. Unfortunately far too many people have no solid spiritual or moral foundation on which to build their lives and families.

ronically, in missing this truth, most of the marriage advocates miss that you encourage marriage by not actively promoting marriage. You build responsibility in men and women too (marriages are failing primarily because women are the irresponsible ones being unleashed with god-like power, not men), by acting with them outside of pushing them into something they’re not ready for.

As far as I can tell, no one is actively promoting marriage for people that aren’t ready for it except so-called social conservatives. Our whole marital culture is built around getting one’s ducks in a row financially first, as this the metric we use to determine worthiness and responsibility. Stanton is not parroting the cultural line at all in that respect.

Deifying women? He is most certainly engaging in that to an absurd degree. And that was my chief objection to his speech.

As far as I can tell, no one is actively promoting marriage for people that aren’t ready for it except so-called social conservatives. Our whole marital culture is built around getting one’s ducks in a row financially first, as this the metric we use to determine worthiness and responsibility. Stanton is not parroting the cultural line at all in that respect.

What is the context you are using for “social conservatives”? I know what traditional conservatives (myself), neo-conservatives (former bleeding-heart-liberals who became military hawks as a result of 9-11-2001), and paleo-conservatives (Pat Buchanan and his ilk) are. How do social conservatives relate to these three if at all?

I don’t see conservatives of any stripe promoting marriage for people who aren’t ready for it. I do see some so called conservatives trying to guilt some men into marrying some women who may or may not be deserving of it. You can call that marriage promotion, but it is only in the context that these men are already living-with/sleeping-with/breeding-with these women but refusing to marry them for whatever reason and the woman would marry them if given the chance. I don’t see Stanton or Driscoll or any of them (conservative or not) trying to shame/guilt men whom no woman would sleep with into marrying anyone NOR do I see them trying to shame/guilt MGTOW. Actually, I don’t see Stanton or Driscoll or any of them even referring to these men, its as if they don’t exist. Their anger/frustration/rants/sillyness seems to be placed solely on the PUAs, not those singel Christian men who can’t play (because they have nothing to offer a woman) or have gone John Galt on women entirely.

Our whole marital culture is built around getting one’s ducks in a row financially first, as this the metric we use to determine worthiness and responsibility.

Not today it isn’t. Not with credit. I’m thinking on the home ownership front, and finding that ironically it’s something attained as part of responsibility within marriage. I’m told there was a time when credit wasn’t so loose (I saw some of it as a child but still). You didn’t have credit cards, you didn’t have installment loans. If you wanted something you had to buy it outright, with one exception: a house.

For buying a house, I’m told you had to prove your credit worthiness, but you also had to manage a 20-25% down payment. To that end, it required scrimping and saving for several years, disciplining your spending, to be able to come up with the down payment, and the same for many years to come to be able to pay off the mortgage. The problem comes in the midst of marriage, which means not only the husband had to scrimp and save, but control the wife in the process. But that was a lot easier given her own desires, which means if she wanted the house she had to forgo demands on him. Can’t have the latest fashions, can’t have anything at whim. In fact, she had to make do with what she had for a very long time. In fact, house ownership was what proved responsibility within marriage.

By contrast women shudder at that thought. For the man to be any good to her as a marriage prospect, she has to have the house NOW. She has to have a nice car to drive, NOW. She has to have the good life NOW. And a man she marries has to have those things. It’s easy on credit, but credit doesn’t reinforce any responsibility, and only blows expectations out of the water. It all unleashes the envy of the woman and requires moving heaven and earth to have any financial responsibility, for not being able to control the woman in her envy.

No woman would dare tolerate what some of the couples went through today, as told in those stories. Not for any reason other than her own lack of responsibility. (A non-sequitur, but an interesting one nonetheless given how it points back into the topic of marriage and responsibility)

As far as I can tell, no one is actively promoting marriage for people that aren’t ready for it except so-called social conservatives.

There is also a slew of people promoting marriage for people (especially women) after prime time is over when women have the least to offer in a marriage. The biological clock isn’t going to wait until people are ready. Still, what is practiced here and now is NOT marriage at all, and men should not get themselves mixed up in it. If they are still determined to venture out on the ice, they should at least be aware of what they are getting themselves into. At least this awareness is becoming more the case than before.

In fact, she had to make do with what she had for a very long time. In fact, house ownership was what proved responsibility within marriage.

By contrast women shudder at that thought. For the man to be any good to her as a marriage prospect, she has to have the house NOW. She has to have a nice car to drive, NOW. She has to have the good life NOW. And a man she marries has to have those things. It’s easy on credit, but credit doesn’t reinforce any responsibility, and only blows expectations out of the water. It all unleashes the envy of the woman and requires moving heaven and earth to have any financial responsibility, for not being able to control the woman in her envy.

On another forum on worldcrossing (before it went bye-bye) I tried to explain this very concept to a board full of women who desired marriage. These were “Rules Girls.” The majority of them were not married and desperately wanted to be so, because to be married (to them) meant getting all the things they want NOW. I had to explain to them that their desire for all these things NOW (and their expectations of them, actually believing that came with the package by agreeing to get married) was part of the reason why so many of them were NOT married. They haven’t earned it. Why would a man want to marry a woman with so many demands of him? I said they had get married simply, scrimp, save, do without for 5, 10, even 20 years in some cases before they were entitled to have everything they wanted (which may be nothing more than a 3 bedroom house.) This was a non-starter for these women (and that comment almost got me banned from the forum) not because they weren’t willing to scrimp and save, but because they didn’t have the 10 or 20 years to do so since they were already in the late 30s or early 40s and they may have already had children. For them, it is far too late to make do with what she had. She is already doing that. Marriage is (for her) ONLY an upgrade in lifestyle…. or don’t get married.

That is where we are at with marriage. And I think this is one of the many reasons why we have so much less of it. The entire concept of “…for better or for worse….” is a complete and total non-starter. It isn’t a serious/sincere concept held by the majority of women desiring marriage.

Please list any benefits that marraige 2.0 offers the single red pill man? Because I can’t think or any.

The only benefit it confers is a default presumption of fatherhood. Basically if you’re having a kid outside of wedlock, the skank-ho can disappear, and there’s not much you can do about it. This actually happens a lot in my area because women can get the same benefits from the state easier than they can get child support, by pretending that they don’t know who the father of the kid is. Many men don’t mind this; though I’d think it’d be hell to know I had a child someplace, and never be able to see it.

Anyway, the only reason a young man ought to get married is if he is having a kid. In that situation, I’d hope that he’d choose the mother of the kid carefully, but as we all know, hormones beat higher brain functions rather frequently.

In fact, it’s not only improper to refuse the financial demand of a wife, it’s considered abuse.

P.J. O’Rourke summarized the four possible kinds of spending thusly:

1. You spend your money on yourself. You’re motivated to get the thing you want most at the best price. This is the way middle-aged men haggle with Porsche dealers.

2. You spend your money on other people. You still want a bargain, but you’re less interested in pleasing the recipient of your largesse. This is why children get underwear at Christmas.

3. You spend other people’s money on yourself. You get what you want but price no longer matters. The second wives who ride around with the middle-aged men in the Porsches do this kind of spending at Neiman Marcus.

4. You spend other people’s money on other people. And in this case, who gives a [damn]?

#3 is marriage 2.0 for most women marrying beta men. There is hell to pay if he doesn’t give her what she wants!

By contrast women shudder at that thought. For the man to be any good to her as a marriage prospect, she has to have the house NOW. She has to have a nice car to drive, NOW. She has to have the good life NOW. And a man she marries has to have those things. It’s easy on credit, but credit doesn’t reinforce any responsibility, and only blows expectations out of the water. It all unleashes the envy of the woman and requires moving heaven and earth to have any financial responsibility, for not being able to control the woman in her envy.

I don’t get this as we were close to flat busted when we married, although my husband was embarking on a promising career. We lived in a small apartment (2 bedrooms) for almost 8 years, with three kids. Put down 10% on the house. That’s not 20% but during the boom many people weren’t putting down anything! We bought ours a few years before the boom. It’s a very nice house, but we always buy cars for cash which means they are old by definition, but well maintained. I have to really step outside of the box and strain to figure out what such women are thinking.

This problem is exacerbated by encouraging women to marry after they are older, jaded, cynical, more materialistic, and less able to be so smitten that they’ll live in meager conditions without feeling deprived. There is something to be said for building a life from the ground up.

I highly doubt that your average young bride (in her early 20’s) is so strict about what she expects her husband to have acquired materially before marriage. She may have other issues (I did as I was terribly immature), but expecting to live the high life won’t likely be among them.

What it’s worth examining is how to get parents to prepare their daughters for adult life much sooner than is currently taking place. That way they’ll be able and ready for the realities and sacrifices of life. But you don’t get there by teaching them that they are the most powerful forces in the universe at that their husbands therefore must submit to them.

I truly don’t know what on earth that Stanton guy was thinking. I don’t want to be lumped in with the likes of him. Perish the thought!

I don’t get this as we were close to flat busted when we married, although my husband was embarking on a promising career. We lived in a small apartment (2 bedrooms) for almost 8 years, with three kids. Put down 10% on the house. That’s not 20% but during the boom many people weren’t putting down anything! We bought ours a few years before the boom. It’s a very nice house, but we always buy cars for cash which means they are old by definition, but well maintained. I have to really step outside of the box and strain to figure out what such women are thinking.

The reason why you have to really step outside of the box and strain to figure out what such women are thinking is because you are a good Christian wife who lives a marraige 1.0 life in a marriage 2.0 world. I would say 99% of the single men on this forum who actually wanted to get married would marry a woman such as yourself if you were single and willing to marry them. Alas….

I wasn’t going to comment again, but I have to make clear that I was no devout Christian woman determined to do the right thing when I got married. I don’t want to claim the title of such. I was Churchian to the core in all the worst ways, but was very fortunate.

Not much more than a highly infatuated working womb until about 10 years into my marriage to be honest. I was not the woman you described. At all. God has been gracious.

marriage 2.0 for most women marrying beta men. There is hell to pay if he doesn’t give her what she wants!

Doesn’t matter there is hell to pay for marrying her period. Knowing the nature of women a woman doesn’t respect you and sees you as a life step or starter marriage she can never respect you or “love” you (gina tingle) because you are weak man for tolerating her.

“Abraham “knew nothing” of the New Testament, Oscar?
So he had no idea that God had intended that the Savior of all mankind was to come through him and through Isaac then?
Did you really mean that??
Or were you being too vague.”

RE: Stanton — My Christian but earthy counselor told me a good while back (while I was still married), “The one who has the p**sy has the power.” This was in response to my telling him that I had tried to tell my wife, in light of her long-time sexual refusal, that her power to be the gate-keeper for sex outstripped any economic “power” I had in the relationship. In response, she insisted that I had “all the power” because I out-earned her 4 to 1 (or more), such that she feared impoverishment if she left. (Didn’t stop her from filing two years later. However, after having to support herself for a year on her $32,000 salary, increased by 50% by my child support and alimony payments, she started online dating and then married the first guy she met a year after that. Why she thought an annual income of about $57K was poverty is just one more thing about her I’ll never understand. Compared to other betrayed husbands, I got off rather lightly on both the amount and the duration of child support and alimony. Even so, those payments, plus the credit damage from losing the house and not being able to continue credit card payments because of the payments to her and the additional expense of separate households, plus the significant drop in income from my decreased productivity for quite awhile due to the divorce and upheaval for my kids — all put me in a significant financial hole. Thankfully, it didn’t bankrupt me and now, 4.5 years after she filed and 3+ years after the divorce was final, I’m finally starting to dig out of the hole. I might even be able in 2015 to pay off my credit card debt and the money I occasionally had to borrow from family and friends. A year from now I’m thinking my financial situation will look much, much better.)

Back to Stanton — Stanton’s grievous problem is that, unlike my counselor, he thinks it’s a good thing that the one with the vagina has the power, rather than a very dangerous thing that is prone to abuse (as in my case and so many others). I think that’s at least one of the reasons God is explicit in the New Testament about the wife’s duty to submit to and respect her husband and her duty not to deprive her husband of sex except by mutual agreement (and then only for a season of prayer/fasting). To go on for an hour about the woman’s trumping power without ever cautioning women to be scrupulous about obeying the Bible’s instructions on how to use that power to bless their husbands rather than to control them — the only explanation is that Stanton believes women are naturally less depraved than men, which is ridiculous on its face and in real life. Apparently, he wants to one-up the Catholics — all women, not just the Virgin Mary, are immaculate.

The point went right over your head didn’t it. OK, let me try again. EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT you made against guided evolution could also be made against special creation. It’s never been directly observed. It is “illogical” (mere argument by assertion) for God to do it that way. It’s just “unbelievable” for God to do it that way (an argument to ignorance).

Mirroring the argument isn’t effective here.

It’s not illogical to use special creation. It’s done in human engineering all the time – create a complete design and build it. Human engineering also has a sort of “guided evolution” where products are iteratively improved. However, this is used because human knowledge is incomplete and we can create better designs over time. Also note that the changes are pretty small compared to the overall design. Calculators aren’t evolved into computers, even though they occupy a similar niche in tools. God, if omniscient and timeless, doesn’t need to go through a dozen prototypes and experiments before settling on a final design.

Given the historical documentation we do have of the process, the simplest understanding is that special creation was used. Ex: Forming man from dust. You could interpret that as Dust -> Bacteria -> Amoeba -> Fish -> Lizard -> Rat -> Monkey -> Man, or Dust -> Man. But what reason do you have to believe it’s meant to be the convoluted multi-step chain rather than the simple one?

It may be possible for someone to “evolve” DOS into Win 8.1 … but the system architectural transitions will make it NOT gradual. The more complex design is orders of magnitude more so than the “simple” design, such that it is far more work to evolve the design and make each step work, rather than starting from scratch.

Same thing with any evolutionary transitions. There’s cell division to egg-laying to livebirth, as well as changes in diet/environmental needs. God could make evolution work as a self-challenge. Don’t see any reason why we should believe he actually did so.

“… God could make evolution work as a self-challenge. Don’t see any reason why we should believe he actually did so.”

Your entire piece was a good take-down. As for the last bit that I quoted: not only is there no reason to think that He did “trial-and-error” (an absurdity for a being that is both omnipotent and omniscient), there is every reason to believe that He did not. For one thing, if viewed without preconceptions, the fossil and geological records support Young-Earth catastrophism far better than Old-Earth gradualism. Even there I am being absurdly generous: all the “evidence” for the Old-Earth myth is either circular, and/or contradictory, and/or based on supposition, and/or fits the Young-earth model as well or better.

Anyway, we don’t have to wonder how God did it: He told us how He did it.

RE: Stanton — My Christian but earthy counselor told me a good while back (while I was still married), “The one who has the p**sy has the power.” This was in response to my telling him that I had tried to tell my wife, in light of her long-time sexual refusal, that her power to be the gate-keeper for sex outstripped any economic “power” I had in the relationship. In response, she insisted that I had “all the power” because I out-earned her 4 to 1 (or more)

Feminism is an outgrowth of capitalism, as such feminists (like all capitalists) see everything as some goony “exchange” of one thing for another. Sadly, many in our circles have embraced this ridiculous nonsense also (I’m looking at all the “PUA” types here).

Feminists find it impossible to see that it is natural for men and women to come together, pair bond, and have a normal, healthy relationship, despite the fact that we’ve been doing it since we fell out of the treetops. They’re anti-intellectual kooks and this is the best example of how completely detached from everyday reality they are.

Pair bonding isn’t an exchange, and it isn’t about power. It’s the building of something entirely new that can not be bought or traded for.

Thanks for the conversation with the Pastor and Red Pill Mike.I have had the exact conversations with both my Rabbi and Pastor…..and I always WIN! I remember my Pastor telling me that I had a “defeatist attitude” that in order for marriage to work that I would have to “change my attitude”.I laughed in his face.I told him point blank…”you are an idiot. I am a business man.I know the difference between a ‘bad business deal’ and a ‘sucker’s deal’ and Marriage 2.0 is a SUCKER’S DEAL!” He then told me that “I have to trust in God and your marriage will work fine”…..I replied..”I do trust in God…to keep me out of sham deals like Marriage 2.0….and if you have not noticed…he does just that”.And for my grand finale I ask..”Pastor,if you were going to go skydiving and the jump instructor said to you..’by the way these parachutes only open 50% of the time’..would you jump”?…..The Rabbi or Pastor never have an answer for this! Also, “Pastor,do you realize that your divorce rate within the Christian Church is higher than ours is at the Synagogue”?…Again,he never has an answer for that!

I had to stop a number of times, but finally got through the thing. Between his effeminacy and the sewage spewing from his mouth I got sick several times.

But it is useful to see the female-supremacist language put out there quite unabashedly, confirming Marriage 2.0 to the letter. He even states that men should be submitting to women towards the end.

The main problem I had with Stanton’s video is that he basically reduced women, all women (by them having all the sexual power and thus, setting the “marketplace” for access to them sexually, his words) to whores. They trade access to their bodies (sex with them) for access to the resources and provisioning of the men sexing them. He then reduced marriage to nothing but permanently-temporary whore-john relationship (he gives her provisioning based on where she set her value on the “sexual market”) by stipulating that his wife Jackie would ONLY have stayed married to him if he went to college to giver her more financial provisioning. And he was okay with her giving him the threat point. I suppose you are forced to make this whore-john reconciliation of marriage if you are so blue pill as to refuse to acknowledge marriage as a relationship based on property and a wife’s submission to her husband.

Empath, who said I was trying to be conciliatory? I was merely noting truth. I stand for that no matter how uncomfortable it is. Saying a message is the worst thing in the world gives it undue power and takes an incorrect focus.

Brad….have you ever said , “its freezing in here”? Was it always below 32 F where you were when you said that?

Sheesh man, you somehow became more effete in your 2015 mode of discourse. Nit picking some remarks as if they are literal, ….using “not all __________ are ___________”, so forth.

Folks are not saying things literally when they invoke hyperbole. Folks are not inferring all or nothing. They are unpacking the main and overarching message. That a woman should select and stay with one sexual mate is true, but its a needle under a haystack of things that serve to facilitate her doing exactly NOT that.

What good is it to tell a group the virtues of marriage while undermining marriage and the individuals that are to comprise the one flesh?

This manner of discourse is somehow more troubling than Stanton’s because it is the low murmur of quiet consent. It is stealth conciliatory. It is your emotions driving your words. What you say and the way you say it allow you to escape discomfort, the same way not holding women to account (to be clear this is an example, not a specific charge on you in this topic…..if I don’t disclaim that I expect you’d come back with “where did I do that?”) allows teachers and pastors to make sermons a smorgasbord allowing hearers to take the items they like and leave the Brussels Sprouts.

I don’t know if I reached your e-mail or not. But I notified you that I got a transcript made of the Stanton video so we can go picking through it, and offered it to you. If you haven’t gotten it, feel free to e-mail me. Same offer goes to Dalrock if you’re reading this.

@innocentbystanderboston

The main problem I had with Stanton’s video is that he basically reduced women, all women (by them having all the sexual power and thus, setting the “marketplace” for access to them sexually, his words) to whores.

Part of the traditionalist model of marriage is the necessity to make sex into a commodity, and do all the commensurate things to generate demand. This is to facilitate the idea that the man must chase after the beauty and supplicate to her.

“This problem is exacerbated by encouraging women to marry after they are older, jaded, cynical, more materialistic, and less able to be so smitten that they’ll live in meager conditions without feeling deprived. There is something to be said for building a life from the ground up.
I highly doubt that your average young bride (in her early 20’s) is so strict about what she expects her husband to have acquired materially before marriage. She may have other issues (I did as I was terribly immature), but expecting to live the high life won’t likely be among them.”

Well and its other things. Have you seen the latest college dorms? They come complete with not only swimming pools, but rock climbing walls, spas, you name it. So kids go to college living in the lap of luxury for 4-6 years essentially free in their mind as they are not thinking about student loan debt. Then graduate and get a job making 23K a year if they’re lucky.

And then it depends on one’s home life. I have a friend who grew up in fairly middle class to upper middle class neighborhood. So that’s what she expected when she left home. When I mentioned her and her boyfriend at the time getting serious and maybe sharing a car or catching the bus or living in a one bedroom apartment, I got laughed out of the room. So if you grow up with a lot of comforts, it is easy to think life is just like that or that everyone lives like that. Some women leave home with great expectations.

I got a transcript made of the Stanton video so we can go picking through it, and offered it to you. If you haven’t gotten it, feel free to e-mail me. Same offer goes to Dalrock if you’re reading this.

Thanks! I’ve been mostly out of pocket the past few days, but some time in the next few days I’ll probably have some time to devote to the Stanton vid. A transcript would help a great deal. I just sent you an email.

So if you grow up with a lot of comforts, it is easy to think life is just like that or that everyone lives like that. Some women leave home with great expectations.

I grew up in a working class neighborhood but we lived in a four bedroom house, always had 2 cars, never went hungry. It was common place for my dad to hire people in to do most any work that needed to be done on the house, cars etc. We weren’t poor.

Husband grew up in a nicer neighborhood than I did. 5 bedroom house, had all the latest and greatest toys when they came out. In terms of real money, I’m sure they had less than we did, but they didn’t live like it.

In other words, our sacrifices had little to do with what we were used to and everything to do with the fact that we had a bunch of little kids very fast. But mostly, we just young and “stupid”. Being naive is not without its advantages. It truly does. Ignorance in some situations really can lead to bliss. The trick is not remain ignorant when you need knowledge.

Well and its other things. Have you seen the latest college dorms? They come complete with not only swimming pools, but rock climbing walls, spas, you name it. So kids go to college living in the lap of luxury for 4-6 years essentially free in their mind as they are not thinking about student loan debt. Then graduate and get a job making 23K a year if they’re lucky.

And then it depends on one’s home life. I have a friend who grew up in fairly middle class to upper middle class neighborhood. So that’s what she expected when she left home. When I mentioned her and her boyfriend at the time getting serious and maybe sharing a car or catching the bus or living in a one bedroom apartment, I got laughed out of the room. So if you grow up with a lot of comforts, it is easy to think life is just like that or that everyone lives like that. Some women leave home with great expectations.

The first professor I had in college talked about this very concept. Its a tough thing for an 18 year old girl to handle, the concept that life (in a young marriage) means having less than what you got used to having growing up with mom and dad. Getting all those nice privleges in the dorm room with the private bathroom, rock climbing wall, and nail salon downstairs until the age of 22 or 23 only exaserbates the problem. But by the same token, it should come as no surprise to men in the manosphere as to why women get married so much later in life (if at all.) Its not that she is against getting married at age 22. It is just that Prince Charming hasn’t arrived yet to marry her and elevate her life over what she can already do on her own (or living with roommates.)

Assuming a man is one of integrity and hard working , there’s no reason why a woman who is interested in a husband to love and be loved by can’t live with some sacrifices.

Bottom line is that if she doesn’t love him enough to live with one car or live in a one bedroom apartment, he needs to move on. She doesn’t love him enough. Better that he cut his losses early on and find someone interested in giving and loving rather than taking and living well. What’s she going to do if financial crisis comes?

“Its not that she is against getting married at age 22. It is just that Prince Charming hasn’t arrived yet to marry her and elevate her life over what she can already do on her own (or living with roommates.)”

There you have it. I think the ignorance that Elspeth speaks of has largely disappeared. A lot of feminist dating advice for women advises them to be as calculating and ambitious in their dating life as they are in their careers/work life.

Its not that she is against getting married at age 22. It is just that Prince Charming hasn’t arrived yet to marry her and elevate her life over what she can already do on her own (or living with roommates.)

There you have it. I think the ignorance that Elspeth speaks of has largely disappeared. A lot of feminist dating advice for women advises them to be as calculating and ambitious in their dating life as they are in their careers/work life.

Very true. But what I’ve noticed (or at least noticed 15+ years ago while I was still very blue pill, “dating”, prior to married life) is that childless women in their mid to late 20s and early 30s even, can often compartmentalize this and justify this “trade” in lifestyle by looking at how their collective resources re-allocate themselves in marriage 2.0 to a man who is NOT Prince Charming. Think like a modern feminist:

His paycheck pays for
mortgage/rent
both car payments
both car insurances
home owners/renters insurance
property taxes (if owning)
the HOA/landscaping/pool maintenance
the condo maintenence fee
food in the house
electricty
heat
DirecTV/cable
cell phones (land line?)
both student loans
his clothes (which he doesn’t need any more of because I don’t care what he wears now so he’s actually saving money by being married to me)

Sure. That’s why feminist tracts such as Firestone’s “Dialectic of Sex” employ so many Marxist tropes, and why current 3rd wave SJW feminism is so big on the oppressor / oppressed, because feminism is an outgrowth of capitalism.

as such feminists (like all capitalists) see everything as some goony “exchange” of one thing for another.

Feminists, like all followers of Marx, see everything as a dialectic between oppressors and oppressed, in their case women are a perpetually oppressed class and men the perpetual oppressors. That’s why femnists are big on what is owed to women, and rarely actually use the term “exchange” except in certain narrow situations where the term “power exchange” is found.

Feminists find it impossible to see that it is natural for men and women to come together, pair bond, and have a normal, healthy relationship, despite the fact that we’ve been doing it since we fell out of the treetops. They’re anti-intellectual kooks and this is the best example of how completely detached from everyday reality they are.

Agreed, because feminism is all about the oppressor / oppressed dialectic feminists must make female / male relationships all about power. They are anti science, and will have to become more so in the not at all distant future, because science clearly demonstates the feminist trope of “men and women are the same except women can have babies” is utter nonsense.

hate to introduce disagreement on this nit, but during the recession divorce rates dropped.

Oh I’m sure it did. And recession or no recession, divorce rates will no doubt drop lower and lower. This is a natural by-product of the marriage rate dropping even faster. You actually have to already BE MARRIED in order to get divorced.

I think what we have at issue is that men see a relationship as a commitment, women see it as a solution. This is a consequence Rollo’s opportunistic love. If she can’t afford the shoes, he should be making more money. Can’t take vacations, he shouldn’t work so hard. If she’s not turned on by him, he should be better looking. If she’s tired, he should be doing more chores. The expectation is that they will be whisked away to some child-like dorm life existence where everything is provided with free money and she gets taken care of with all the toys she could want, surrounded by friends, parties, and free drinks. Women want to be treated like a child, they just don’t want it to look like so much effort for the man, because then they might have to show some gratitude, or at least offer something worthwhile in return. Her parents never expected anything in return, why should her man? So, not only have women commodified love, but they’ve refused to even recognize the value the man brings to the relationship. That’s just the price to keep her in the relationship, now he has to work to make her happy. Essentially, women won’t negotiate until after you’ve agreed to all their demands.

If a man is not the solution to all her problems, then he wasn’t Mr. Right, and she moves on to the next flavor of the week. Feminism teaches young girls they must take at least 10 years screwing to find Mr. Right. By the time that’s over, they have become miserable, disgruntled, unhappy feminist shrews, always expecting the next man to be the One, and well prepared to abandon ship at the first sign of a problem not solved by her relationship. A man must convince her, not just that he’s a good man, but that he’s better than every future hypothetical romantic encounter and every past passionate one night stand. And what can she offer in return? That she will stay devoted to him forever, or until something better comes along, whichever comes first.

Great lists. He pays for things he uses, and she pays for things she uses. Fair is fair. It’s not her fault he chooses to share the house, car, electricity, groceries with her. I mean she does the work of buying the groceries, why shouldn’t he pay for the food she picks out?

IBB, Im well aware the decline in marriage and its effect on the decline in divorce.

Now, listen close…..divorce decreased during the recession. Even taking all that into account.

We’re all on the same side here (mostly), but it does no good to take low hanging pedestrian arguments and use them when they are not valid. Acknowledging that divorce slowed during the recession does not weaken our arguments. Playing pussyfoot with ancillary and accounted for factors does.

AR, glad you addressed Boxer. I was going to tell him he is two for two in ’15 on comments Im shocked to see from him. There is a hard linkage between Marxism (or any related ism, I’ll not go into the Hall of Split Hairs about the specific isms) and feminism. Its outlandish to claim otherwise.

IBB, Im well aware the decline in marriage and its effect on the decline in divorce.

Now, listen close…..divorce decreased during the recession. Even taking all that into account.

I am aware of that.

We’re all on the same side here (mostly),

I know.

but it does no good to take low hanging pedestrian arguments and use them when they are not valid. Acknowledging that divorce slowed during the recession does not weaken our arguments. Playing pussyfoot with ancillary and accounted for factors does.

Fine. If you don’t attribute the decline in divorce to the decline in marriage, make another argument. Put your put out there and risk getting it stepped upon.

The problem we have with discussing this is it is impossible to prove a negative. We have no idea that what we are proving is a positive or a false negative. And what do I mean by that? We can’t interview married women and ask them for data points as to why they DIDN’T get divorced over the last 6 or 7 years and what could have been different to encourage their possible divorce in the future. So…. we speculate.

Kinda passive-aggressive and feminine to address me in the third person. Be that as it may, please see below…

AR, glad you addressed Boxer. I was going to tell him he is two for two in ’15 on comments Im shocked to see from him. There is a hard linkage between Marxism (or any related ism, I’ll not go into the Hall of Split Hairs about the specific isms) and feminism. Its outlandish to claim otherwise.

If that were true, then we’d see feminism starting in societies which espoused historical materialism; but we don’t. Feminism was conceived, took root, and spread from the USA. It’s most endemic in capitalist countries (UK, Canada, etc.) and not taken seriously elsewhere.

Kooky AR can take feminists seriously if he wants to, but I won’t join him. American feminist nutters claim to be Marxists and it’s clear those same idiots don’t know what they’re talking about (much like AR). Many of them also claim that Jesus was a woman, gay, etc. Why wouldn’t you take them seriously as theologians if you accept their pseudo-scholarship on Marx? The reality is that feminism is an outgrowth of capitalism, partaking in commodity fetishism, which is obvious to anyone who examines it. They believe that everything is “on sale” (i.e. their sexuality) and they espouse a cartel organization to control the sexual “market”.

I know you (Empath) aren’t seriously interested in this, but any observers who are can start with Foucault’s takedowns of de Beauvoir’s Second Sex (one of these is embedded in his book *The Order of Things* and is quite funny). Lukacs’ work on reification is also relevant.

It has been written about enough already its not on me to get you caught up.

Your assertion that “we cant interview women” to see why they didn’t divorce is the same argument we see when female trolls pop in and debate whether women are the ones filing so many NF divorces. For the same reasons they should be ignored (its all been dealt with) so should your overly forceful assertions

Feminism is not capitalism in the slightest. Feminism is a hotbed of socialism where men get the short end of the stick.

Feminist actions may appear capitalistic in their childish ‘me, me, me, me’ attitude; but they would be merely a noisy gong without the power of the state to financially whip men within an inch of their lives.

Your assertion that “we cant interview women” to see why they didn’t divorce is the same argument we see when female trolls pop in and debate whether women are the ones filing so many NF divorces. For the same reasons they should be ignored (its all been dealt with) so should your overly forceful assertions

No empath.

We have the data (positives) for the number of no fault divorces women file. Just take the total number of divorces filed and divide by the number of divorces filed only by women. You get 70 (almost 75) percent. We don’t need to debate (or even dignify the existance of) a female troll or anything she has to say about “…see, men file for divorce too, so stop attacking unilateral divorce law!” We just need to do simple math.

You can not do math where there is no data. So, I speculate. Obviously there is a reason why the divorce rate declined. If you listen to Stanton and his ilk plus his feminist allies they will say, see, unilateral divorce law is working properly, its not that bad, all women aren’t going to divorce you just because they get your money either way and now they can run to f-ck the AMOG, so stop being MGTOW and “man up” and marry that slut. That is because that narrative fits with their worldview. But they can only speculate as to why the divorce rate dropped much the way I did. So sorry sir if you are so damn offended that I speculated.

I asked you to give a counter argument to my point that the divorce rate went down because our marriage rate is dropping like a rock. You have not. I’m still wating.

Feminism is not capitalism in the slightest. Feminism is a hotbed of socialism where men get the short end of the stick

If I may, I think boxer may have been incomplete in his point. It is not that feminism is a bi-product of capitalism. It is (instead) that only capitalist nations have sufficient enough surplus wealth to bother enough to even entertain the concept that is feminism. Socialist nations don’t produce enough wealth such that any feminists would want to live in them. They vote with their feet. If she can, the feminist leaves the socialist nation of pure utopian equalization to live in a patriarical nightmare that is a world infested with this horrid concept known as capitalism. Why is that?

You think feminist women want to live in an equalized society? You are misled. Feminists love marriage 2.0 and they keep score (with each other) based on the kind of man they can catch to secure his resource provisioning in capitalist nations. It is the pure socialist nations where this would make no sense. Look at Sweden. Pure socialism and almost NO marriage, just pure co-habitation. That is not a result of feminism. That is the result of socialism. Feminism there is meaningless as feminism is too expensive for Sweden to afford to entertain.

Have you read this story on yahoo a week or so ago where a woman is jealous and resentful of her children and feels neglected by her husband because he’s being number 1 Dad, but then she threatens to nuke the family because he’s not giving HER any attention?

A woman putting her own needs before her children? She seems envious of how much positive attention he was getting for being such a good dad, she mentions it several times. I wonder if women stopped putting so much effort into their career, they would be happier with the positive attention from serving their family.

“At the same time, we also know that the Black gender earnings gap has all but disappeared. As Hanna Rosin explains, Black women earn 94% of the weekly earnings of Black men. Black men are leading the way here, and all we have to do is get the rest of the nation’s men to follow.”

Are there more working black women than there are working black men? Any stats on that?

If white men drop out of the working pool then white women will have no choice but to marry Asian-American men who will continue to get educated, work and earn well because they like the results they are getting from that lifestyle.

If I may, I think boxer may have been incomplete in his point. It is not that feminism is a bi-product of capitalism. It is (instead) that only capitalist nations have sufficient enough surplus wealth to bother enough to even entertain the concept that is feminism. Socialist nations don’t produce enough wealth such that any feminists would want to live in them.

The wealthiest and most powerful nation presently is China, which is also a socialist (and theoretically Marxist) nation.

Yet, China has none of the punitive child support or alimony laws that capitalist nations have instituted. In Marxist China, single mothers are viewed as parasites, subject to extra taxes for their wasteful behavior. Multiple babymamas get taken down to the clinic and sterilized, involuntarily.

If your contention was true, feminism would have begun in China or the USSR, and would still be most endemic there. In fact, feminism was/is officially suppressed in these societies. China is still proving much more resistant to feminism than, for example, India and Brazil are, and it’s largely because they have the philosophical tools to argue against capital and its excesses — which feminism is a part.

They vote with their feet. If she can, the feminist leaves the socialist nation of pure utopian equalization to live in a patriarical nightmare that is a world infested with this horrid concept known as capitalism. Why is that?

Women are historically much less mobile than men. Not only are you wrong, but the opposite is true.

Feminism sprung up in the USA, land of capital, the constitution, and “freedom”. How do you explain this? You ought to at least think about it. You know what they say about ignorance of history (doomed to repeat it, and all that).

I read that entire article at work this afternoon. It’s an excellent example of what old-school readers of Dalrock know as the “threatpoint”. A spoiled wife isn’t getting all the acclaim, so she symbolically takes her own kids hostage, and threatens her husband with a divorce.

Later that day, Michael came to my office. He sat down across from me with tears in his eyes. He apologized with his whole heart. He explained that at some point, he had begun believing that his being a 100 percent father would make up for being a 10 percent husband, and that his identity as a father, somewhere along the way, had become most important in what defined him. He then validated every feeling I had, asking me for another chance to be the husband he had promised to be and the husband I deserved. I gave it to him.

I understand Michael’s actions and pass no judgment. I do hope he is playing the long game, and will divorce this spoiled cunt, the minute their youngest kid is out of university and into self-sufficiency. Pay the bitch off and get rid of her, and enjoy the rest of your life without her tantrums and her narcissistic need for attention.

Feminism sprung up in the USA, land of capital, the constitution, and “freedom”. How do you explain this?

(shrugs shoulders)

Because we were the richest country on the planet at the time. We still are, I don’t care how much money someone thinks China has. You want to go live in China? Its not all Hong Kong and Macau you know. You want to take a deep breath of fresh air in Bejing? That country is still industrial age and we are information age.

Feminism is parasitic and very expensive on society. There is a huge financial burden to pay for the feminist imperative. Of course the USA was the first place to have it as it was the country that could most afford it. We are freedom loving and increasingly “secular” so God’s law is meaningless to the majority of our human law givers (and enforcers.)

“Interestingly, the authors say that the worst possible outcome for a woman would be to be a rich woman married to a poor man who had another wife (or wives) who was also poor. – You never see that do you!”

I would take any numbers that come from China with the contents of a salt mine. Communist countries lie, all the time, about everything. There’s almost no chance that any numbers they’ve given are remotely accurate. Even to the extent that their numbers accurately reflect the contents of their balance sheets, there have been some pretty solid articles indicating that a lot of the assets companies and the government supposedly own do not, in fact, exist.

Also, according to someone I know who keeps up with Chinese culture, they’re embracing feminism apace, though not in the same terms, and only to the extent that it’s useful to the government. Asia tends to do the same things as the US, just on about a 10-15 year delay (hip-hop-style music is starting to be their major pop style, for example). Homosexuality is now officially accepted. They embrace the idea of women working about as thoroughly as anyone in the world, since families can have only one child who has to take care of their parents and it’s now officially illegal to tell pregnant women the sex of their babies before they’re born to avoid sex-selective abortion of girls. Chinese culture is now extremely money-grubbing, much more so than here. Daughters are expected to work just as much as sons since if you have a daughter you can’t have a son; huge amounts of pressure are placed on them to do so. And of course it’s less of an issue to wait to have children since you can only have one anyway.

TFH, what I believe you are suggesting is it’s the political system, not the economic system, that precipitates the development of Feminism.

Boxer, China may have a higher GDP (at least on paper) that the US but when you break it down per capita it’s a different story. A story of crushing poverty.

Feminism is a socialist ideology. The reason it cannot exist in some socialist nations (or we should say Communist nations) is that Communism is essentially totalitarianism and Communist leaders/elites will simply not allow other “-isms” to exist unless they benefit from them in some way. The question about why the USSR did not have a Feminist movement is easy: the leaders had no need for it.

In a democratic republic such abhorrent ideologies as Feminism are free to propagate.

Both Russia and China have soundly made fun of ‘feminism’, because it is nothing but a cost to a society, and not politically useful in a place without elections.

Both Russia and China criticise feminism philosophically, and the work of antifeminist theorists in these societies is practically effective. That’s my point. Lots of people make fun of feminism, and see their society overrun by it regardless. (This is happening not just in India now — also in Brazil).

The Marxist flavored antifeminism originating in Chinese discourse can be tweaked to appeal to Christians with minimal effort. The Bible is as much an anticapitalist book as anything Marx wrote.

Democracy has a life-cycle, after which it is followed by a ‘feminist’ police state + goddess cult. This is because while men vote for what they perceive to benefit all people, women vote for what benefits women only. That is why women-centric legislation creeps into all democracies, but there is not a single Western democracy that has an immigration policy of accepting women only (the perfect proof that men aren’t united or focused politically the way women are).

Have you ever read Kenneth Arrow’s work? If not, you’d probably find it useful. It seems relevant to a lot of your own.

Like many here, I suspect your definition of “communism” is something vague and general like “unpleasant” or “tedious”. The word actually does mean something. It means the abolition of the state, political power devolving to individuals and small groups, the abolition of private real property, etc. None of the actual aspects of communism emerge from a political embrace of feminism.

Marcus –
Every excuse given in that article (and anywhere else) for women to be given yet another privilege (this time with special public restroom availability) is just one more reason for women not to be allowed access to what was once referred to as “no place for a woman” places. It even makes one wonder how they ever got out of those kitchens in the first place.

We begin with the days of the Marxists. It can be logical to surmise that if you want to implant your ideology, especially one that demands total fealty to government as a God, you’ll have to remove the family from consideration. Especially when you consider socialism itself, it becomes verboten for a child to be in a family and have it be considered their child – or their property. Their child to raise, their child to educate. In socialism, the child belongs to society, as administrated by the State. Not too many people will willingly give up their children, let alone to the State. Nor will they give themselves up as subjects of the State themselves.

According to Marx and Engels, under Communism the “bourgeois” family would have to “disappear,” just as “the capital” would. The practice of parents “exploiting” their children would be abolished, and family education would be replaced by public education.

Lenin was in the final stages of implementation of this utopian idea in the 1920s. A few years later, the predictable happened. After the red army was largely abandoned, and political power had been decentralized, the Germans rushed in and took over with almost no resistance (people with the guns over the mantlepiece don’t stand much of a chance against heavy artillery and airplanes and such).

It’s interesting to note how this is almost never discussed in North America. University students find it amazing to note the rapid advance of the Wehrmacht The reason communism doesn’t work is the same reason that libertarianism doesn’t work. It leaves people largely defenseless against well trained neighbors.

So it might be called ‘statist’ instead of ‘communist’. But forced redistribution is the dominant feature of the economy in either case.

Having a state with an apparatus of redistribution, as you’re describing, has a name. It’s called “late stage capitalism” or “advanced industrial society” (if you’re a Marcuse fan).

I’m no economist and I only have a vague understanding of world markets but as I understand it, the numbers used to show that China is now the world’s largest economy are not solely reported by China. They also use verifiable import and export numbers and such.

However, there are different ways to describe economic growth and output. The International Monetary Fund uses Purchasing Power Parity, which aims to compensate for how much different goods and services cost, primarily in developing countries. For example, there is a “Big Mac Index” that describes how a Big Mac costs much more in some countries than in others, relative to what an average worker earns. By that metric, China has passed the U.S. as the world’s largest economy. But by using the same raw numbers and comparing market exchange rates, which private banks use for their business analysis, the U.S. share of global GDP is 22 percent and China’s is 10 percent. China is still growing faster and may overtake the U.S. but it will be some decades before it happens.

Again, I’m just an armchair economist pulling numbers from some internet articles but hopefully this helps.

“Redistribution of assets from men to women is not a feature of communism. The whole hang-up on assets generally is a feature of capitalism itself.

In a communist society there is to be no “state” as we are speaking about here.

Having a state with an apparatus of redistribution, as you’re describing, has a name. It’s called “late stage capitalism” or “advanced industrial society” (if you’re a Marcuse fan).”

Thank you Boxer. I’m glad to see there is at least one blogger who knows what communism is.

“Never been to India, but I don’t think feminism serves any useful purpose, anywhere. It’s a parasitic ideology that encourages people to race to the bottom in aesthetics, behavior and mores.”

I know what you mean by race to the bottom in aesthetics but that’s post-modern westernism. Indian Feminism developed in the cultural aesthetics of South Asia which are very different. Women around the world seeking the right to be treated humanely do so from within their own cultural mores. Photos of New Delhi’s slut walk compared to say, Chicago’s, are like night and day.

I know what you mean by race to the bottom in aesthetics but that’s post-modern westernism. Indian Feminism developed in the cultural aesthetics of South Asia which are very different. Women around the world seeking the right to be treated humanely do so from within their own cultural mores. Photos of New Delhi’s slut walk compared to say, Chicago’s, are like night and day.

I understand what you’re saying. In its early stages, feminism pretends to address real problems. That’s how it gets a foothold. The best contemporary example was the noxious group “femen” in its first months. It was largely comprised then of normal women who were facing legitimate exploitation. (The transition to capitalism left women particularly vulnerable in post-Soviet Ukraine, with violent rape commonplace and prostitution the only way to support oneself for many). Shortly after it became “established”, it started desecrating churches, vandalizing public property, and its major members became a full-time nuisance.

Most troubling is the fact that feminism never actually addresses these legitimate problems it claims to want to solve. It exacerbates them. You have to be suspicious of people who make large sums of money via grievances, etc. They have no incentive to really solve social problems, because then the money would dry up, and they’d have to get a productive job someplace.

I haven’t seen the slut walk in New Delhi, I admit, but anything called a “slut walk” strikes me as something that doesn’t elevate the human spirit, or inspire people to rise above their own condition. Maybe I’m wrong.

“I haven’t seen the slut walk in New Delhi, I admit, but anything called a “slut walk” strikes me as something that doesn’t elevate the human spirit, or inspire people to rise above their own condition. Maybe I’m wrong.”

You’re not wrong. I also detest the reinventing of the outdated insult wheel like the s, b and n words. The s word however doesn’t hold the same bite in India as it does here. They have their own words in their own languages which bite harder to them but a group of people decided to do a walk and the idea went viral but not that viral over there considering the 1 billion plus population, hardly anyone showed, by India’s standards.

Before it was staged there was actually online surveys of what to call it. Various people wrote in suggestions, as did I. Some wanted it to be in Hindi, in local colloquial jargon, but “slut walk” won out. Its my opinion that it did precisely because of the lack of bite. Hindi slang, swear words and pejoratives are very ugly and disrespectful. People would not be able to get their family members to join the walk using such language, and they wouldn’t be allowed by their families to do so either. Slut being a relatively unknown and unused word in India was the most neutral choice and one that also showed solidarity with the other walks around the world.

I don’t know how you could read the article you linked to, or the various links embedded within it, and go away thinking India doesn’t need a feminist movement. You mean to tell me that how the Mathura rape case played out has nothing to do with how girls and women as a group/class are perceived in India? See this is where I scratch my head. There are very real concerns for females in India and unless mindsets are challenged and made aware enough to change those concerns will not be addressed. Call it feminism, call it women’s empowerment, call it humanism or human rights, call it whatever, but things need to change.

FEMEN was suspect from the get go. The man who created that group had a very clear agenda from the onset and that was for women to parade around topless. He openly admits this.

I don’t know how you could read the article you linked to, or the various links embedded within it, and go away thinking India doesn’t need a feminist movement. You mean to tell me that how the Mathura rape case played out has nothing to do with how girls and women as a group/class are perceived in India? See this is where I scratch my head. There are very real concerns for females in India and unless mindsets are challenged and made aware enough to change those concerns will not be addressed. Call it feminism, call it women’s empowerment, call it humanism or human rights, call it whatever, but things need to change.

Again, I’m very suspicious of people who make their living by claiming to champion the downtrodden. They have no incentive to actually solve the social problems they’re enriching themselves by.

I’m sure there are legitimate issues in India, and they’re likely similar to legitimate issues that existed in North America in the formative years of feminism. The feminists in India, like those in the USA, seem to think that they can solve these problems by abolishing marriage (the institution that traditionally protects women and children)…

This is, I believe, an accurate write-up of the Indian “threatpoint” law, which is dissolving marriages in that country now. It’s similar to the disastrous VAWA travesty that exists in the USA. We can feel sorry for the abused women in India, but I also feel sorry for the children who will grow up without their fathers, as I did myself. I believe the latter outnumbers the former.

There may be problems with the technicalities of such laws such as “(a) habitually assaults or makes the life of the aggrieved person miserable by cruelty of conduct even if such conduct does not amount to physical ill-treatment”. That’s very vague, granted. I will assume the actual law books are much more detailed and nuanced. I also concede that gender neutral language should be used. But there is a reason I no longer live in India even though I am married to a citizen of that country. I was actually very eager to live there in our first year of marriage and was open to spending the rest of my life there. After 11 months I just couldn’t bear more and begged my husband to move back to the States with me. India has great food, great architecture, great literature, great religions, great cultures and it might be great for male tourists, but for a woman it is actually very depressing.

This is, I believe, an accurate write-up of the Indian “threatpoint” law, which is dissolving marriages in that country now. It’s similar to the disastrous VAWA travesty that exists in the USA. We can feel sorry for the abused women in India, but I also feel sorry for the children who will grow up without their fathers, as I did myself. I believe the latter outnumbers the former.

Quite depressing for guys also. Once feminism takes hold, politicians will drive a wedge between the sexes. Your ‘solution’ to the problem isn’t a solution… women don’t need empowerment, they already have it, what they need is protection, which is granted far more so by marriage and men involved in families than by destroying men, fatherhood and marriage.

“Your ‘solution’ to the problem isn’t a solution… women don’t need empowerment, they already have it, what they need is protection, which is granted far more so by marriage and men involved in families”

In India the men are too involved in their families. Most of India lives in a joint family arrangement and that is from where a lot of the “threatpoint” problems originate. Even Save India Family will not acknowledge that simply shifting from a joint family arrangement to a nuclear family arrangement would erase most if not all of the issues the more problematic joint families are having.

I’ll also add that I am not Indian and I regret anything I wrote that might give you that impression. You couldn’t pay me to be Indian. But I will assume you are because you embedded yourself into my conversation and jumped at conclusions and made wild assumptions like only an Indian can. My friends frequently ask me “Why are Indians so arrogant?” Do you have an answer for that?

I’m appalled. No mention of the leadership role played by our system of higher education? There, men learn there is no due process, and that their reputations and professional future can be irremediably destroyed by an accusation from a woman. They come to understand that a woman can elevate her social standing and bolster her future by making a formal complaint, and that her status as a member of a protected political class insulates her from consequences.

Let us not fall for the old lie that there is less marriage because there is less dating. The truth is that there is less dating because there is less marriage. If marriage is not a goal, there is no need for a courtship ritual. If there is no courtship, there is no need for formal dating. It is common knowledge that at universities, dating is dead. This is a vast accomplishment, and results directly from the schools’ efforts to raise the cost of relationships far beyond the possible rewards. Schools have helped men see that, the more formalized their relations with women, the bigger the potential disaster. This has been brought to the point that a man would be a fool to date a woman who attends his own school, and every freshman ought to be sat down by his brothers and given The Talk so that he will not blunder blindly ahead.

Give the schools credit! They have established an environment that teaches men the life-changing perils of placing themselves under the control of an institution. As men are seeing ever more clearly, marriage is just such an institution.

Further let us agree that men are behaving like rational economic actors, and are avoiding university altogether. Next, recall the wisdom of Susan Patton… that women at university will never again be surrounded by so many eligible men. Remove the men from that picture, and a major monkey wrench has been tossed into the marriage machine, effects lasting long enough for the women to hit the wall. Then they are even less attractive to men. All that is made possible by universities, and I hope that in the future you will give our system of higher education its due!

Even from a cursory glance, communism is as unworkable as a perpetuum mobile. Any system that is built to accommodate these principles is irredeemably flawed:
“From each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.” It favors those whose needs exceed their expectations. In other words, it discourages excellence and promotes mediocrity. When the system of ‘carrot’ distribution is in disarray, then by necessity it requires being compensated for by generous administration of ‘stick’. Seriously, isn’t it obvious? Communism is inherently repressive.

Socialist welfare state is a middle ground between capitalism and communism, because in principle it tries to equalize individual outputs (from each) with inputs (to each). It is supposed to work only in a practically homogeneous society, like Scandinavian countries before importing large numbers of immigrants.

What India needs… are some decent bowlers. Australia declared at 572 for 7 which TFH will tell you is fairly unbeatable but its a sticky wicket and with India now on 71 for 1 there might well be a draw. I doubt that it will be a case of rain stopping play. What India really needs then is more female cricketers to make clear to the wizards from Oz that any Indian female is better than any Indian man.

Do you realize that there are more Indian sub-continent types on the face of the planet than Chinese. Dear Lord, you would think they could muster up enough talent to beat the Fosters drinkers and without braking into a sweat. This would never have happened before 1947.

What India needs… are some decent bowlers. Australia declared at 572 for 7 which TFH will tell you is fairly unbeatable but its a sticky wicket and with India now on 71 for 1 there might well be a draw.

Years ago, an East Indian grad student got me into watching the cricket matches on television. Most of the entertainment came from watching him go from euphoria to desperate tears and back again, all in the course of a half hour — for what reason I still don’t know. I’m sure I’ll never understand the game. The tempo seems to absolutely oppose hockey.

Make no mistake, I view free market as the most decentralized system of resource distribution. The more unworkable is the official system, then the black market becomes larger to compensate for it.

Do you even understand the shitpost nonsense you’re spamming this comment section with?

The subject is China’s successful philosophical efforts against a feminist takeover of Chinese society. I believe it can be useful for antifeminists here to study these efforts, as they seem more practical than our own.

8oxerIf that were true, then we’d see feminism starting in societies which espoused historical materialism; but we don’t.

Those who know about the feminism of the Bolshevik movement and the early Soviet era would not make such an error. Ignorant people who mistakenly believe that feminism is unique to the Anglosphere, on the other hand, would do so.

Those who follow the pseudo religion of Marx, in its many manifestations, tend to have a difficult time accepting unpleasant historical facts that make their religion look bad. It has the unfortunate effect of clouding thinking.

Those who know about the feminism of the Bolshevik movement and the early Soviet era would not make such an error. Ignorant people who mistakenly believe that feminism is unique to the Anglosphere, on the other hand, would do so.

And I’m sure all those peer-reviewed journal articles about “the Bolshevik movement” (LOL!) will be forthcoming, real soon now.

FYI, some of us here know actual history, as opposed to whatever nonsense that motivates your shitposting. Moreover, some of us are actually interested in opposing feminism, as opposed to simply begging for attention here in this comment section.

Those who follow the pseudo religion of Marx, in its many manifestations, tend to have a difficult time accepting unpleasant historical facts that make their religion look bad. It has the unfortunate effect of clouding thinking.

You wouldn’t know, as you know nothing about the subject you’re pretending to lecture on.

I’ll let you get back to following IBB around now, making up fatuous lies about him, and attempting to get his attention. He’s more generous than I.

The subject is China’s successful philosophical efforts against a feminist takeover of Chinese society. I believe it can be useful for antifeminists here to study these efforts, as they seem more practical than our own.

Everyone here understands what you are saying. But I think you are missing the big picture here, the ultimate difference between life in the West vs life in China. Here I’ll be very exact.

Life in China sucks. Its a hard knock life, for them. Its so hard, thankless, and miserable there, that the workers sometimes commit suicide right there at work. You have factories, farms, and 50-60 hour work weeks and you get paid sh-t because the jobs are all so very well formed. You are a robot, a drone, a cog in the wheel, a nothing. The rest of the world uses China to be their own personal slave-camp/robotic-manufacturing-plant/mass-agro-farm to build everything that the world already designed and grew elsewhere but now wants to consume in mass quantities as cheaply as possible. So China ends up importing all the jobs and exporting all the production in our economically “flat” world. Your average Wal-Mart presents to you (for your own personal consumption) the entire GDP of China. Just drive to Wal-Mart, take what you want from China, and pay next to nothing for it because we paid them virtually nothing to build it. And for the poor Chinaman who built your mass-produced piece of plastic crap you just bought, he dies of lung cancer at age 62 for breating in all the filth those plants there pump into the air (stuff we haven’t poluted the air with in almost 40 years.) Now I ask you boxer, politely, does this lifestyle sound to you like any environment that has the possible petri dish of which to grow feminism?

Ask yourself first, what is feminism? Rush Limbaugh correctly stated that feminism is a philosophy that allows unattractive women better access to the mainstream of society. He is correct. That is feminism. Were it not for the mere fact that some women are just… ugly…. the patriarchy would be alive and thriving everywhere. Women would have no use for feminism as the patriarchy would provide for them all the wealth and resources that they could possibly need. But we know this is not the case. You and I both know entirely too many women who will NEVER be married in their lifetime simply because no man would have them. So they are left with feminism to be made whole to get all the stuff the pretty girls already get. Now before you go off and say that there are ugly Chinese women, there are, but its different. China is at the near bottom of the global lifestyle food-chain. Because of sex selective abortion, there are almost 30,000,000 more Chinese men in China than there are women and the most beautiful of the young, single, Chinese girls, join mail-order-bride-agencies that marry them off to Western men via the internet. Why marry a feminist harpy in the US or Canada when you can import a Chinese beauty who would do anything to leave her 3rd world hell hole? She’ll do anything, stay right in your home, cook you dinner, keep the house clean, stay nice and thin and pretty, and f-ck you every night. Please, don’t send me back to Bejing!!!! The obvious result is that in China, the ugly women who can’t be “purchased” and shipped abroad on the very containership that lands at Long Beach California, they are still “desired” by 30,000,000+ single, lonely, and horny Chinese men who see no pretty Chinese women, anywhere. Again, does this make China a hotbed for a feminist revolution?

Feminism thrives in societies that are at the top end of lifestyle in the world, societies that have not had their secular laws influenced and constrained by Islam. You’ll see rampant feminism in England, Canada, the United States, Australia, Monte Carlo, Singapore, and the like but NOT wealthier areas in the Middle East like Kuwait City or the United Arab Emerites for obvious reasons. Now Kuwait may be more Western than any of Saudia Arabia but it is still Islamic and you aren’t going to get any feminism in Islam.

What of Russia? Even with the oil glut and the price of your average gallon of gas dropping like a rock, there are more billionaires in Moscow than anywhere. Same thing, life there sucks. Sucky life does not make for a good environment to grow feminism. You want to live in Russia with the cold, the alcoholism, the emphasema, and being dead at 58? Even the Russian billionaires, they all move to London England with their big bucks and f-ck up the real estate market there, ask Opus he’ll tell you. And the beautiful Russian women, they sign up for the same mail-order-bride service that the Chinese girls do, please “buy-me” and get me the hell out of here Western boy! That is about as anti-feminist as you can get.

Really think about why feminism thrives and (more importantly) where it thrives. There are reasons for it but you need to take a step back and analyze exactly what feminism is, why it got started, where it continues to thrive, and what circumstances allow it to exist.

The subject is China’s successful philosophical efforts against a feminist takeover of Chinese society. I believe it can be useful for antifeminists here to study these efforts, as they seem more practical than our own.

“Mirroring the argument isn’t effective here. It’s not illogical to use special creation….”

You didn’t get the point either. I was mirroring the argument by making a mere argument by assertion, mirroring the argument insofar as Brad maintained guided evolution was “illogical” but didn’t provide any supporting argumentation – a mere argument by assertion. The point is anyone can make a mere argument by assertion.

“It’s done in human engineering all the time – create a complete design and build it… God, if omniscient and timeless, doesn’t need to go through a dozen prototypes and experiments before settling on a final design…”

Calling other species “prototypes” and “experiments” is the fallacy of begging the question; this is not what they are if guided evolution is true. And this argument can be turned on its head. So why then didn’t God design the universe such that the things He wanted created would arise through natural processes? Why instead would He design a “faulty” universe where He keeps having to intervene to get the types of things He wants created to exist? Not that I accept this argument either, but saying “God wouldn’t do it this way” is a claim to know the mind of God.

“Given the historical documentation we do have of the process, the simplest understanding is that special creation was used. Ex: Forming man from dust. You could interpret that as Dust -> Bacteria -> Amoeba -> Fish -> Lizard -> Rat -> Monkey -> Man, or Dust -> Man. But what reason do you have to believe it’s meant to be the convoluted multi-step chain rather than the simple one?”

The stipulation of this debate which I made clear from the beginning is that Genesis is not accepted as Divine revelation, or at least not taken literally. That being the case, the fossil record, as well as genetic evidence, give me reason to think it’s the convoluted multi-step chain.

“It may be possible for someone to “evolve” DOS into Win 8.1 … but the system architectural transitions will make it NOT gradual. The more complex design is orders of magnitude more so than the “simple” design, such that it is far more work to evolve the design and make each step work, rather than starting from scratch.”

This is not the proper relation of Windows to DOS; Windows is based on DOS. Imagine instead there is a master program embedded in the universe, which unfolds the lower-levels first, and then the higher-levels which are based on the lower-levels. You know that “evolution” is from the Latin “evolutio” which means “unfolding”, right? Moreover, imagine if the code in DOS is incomprehensibly larger than it needs to be – which is the case for “simpler organisms” but with an order of magnitude more base pairs in their DNA as compared to humans – so that “evolving” DOS into Win 8.1 actually involves no more than recycling and reorganizing code chunks.

TFH, what I believe you are suggesting is it’s the political system, not the economic system, that precipitates the development of Feminism.

Well, the hardwiring of the human mind, which has been around for 100 times longer than any nation state, is geared towards the FI. There were once valid biological reasons for this, but those are now obsolete.

But in a democracy, the FI gets exacerbated as it becomes a way to win votes, and thus the entire society gets oriented around it.

In a non-democracy like Russia or China, there is less state backed ‘feminism’ that costs more than it produces, even though at the micro-level, plenty of men in Russia and China will be whiteknights, just like anywhere else.

But a democracy specifically expands the very costly types of ‘feminism’ that exist for no reason other than political power, while a non-democracy will stop short of this due to the high cost and lack of need to woo females for voting purposes.

The feminine imperative gave us gynocentrism and Feminism is gynocentrism on steroids. The problem we face today is most people–men and women alike–are unaware of the FI and its influences. The manosphere is a tiny segment of a segment of the population.

Gynocentrism makes perfect sense from a biological reproductive standpoint since human birthrate is so low. A primitive society needed a lot of women, even more women than men, to maintain its population. But in modern times, in first world nations, the odds of a man being forced to die in combat is astronomically small. (The biggest killers are now cancer, heart disease, and random accidents.) Maybe what we’re seeing is a male surplus, which puts downward pressure on the value of men in the society, with rampant gynocentrism causing the men to ‘compete’ in white-knighting and pedestalizing. Maybe the natural order of things is a male:female ratio of about 40:60 (2:3). I’m just rambling out some ideas here.

I absolutely agree that the cost of Feminism will stop it from spreading in a non-democracy, or more accurately it will be stopped. Of course, at the micro level there will still be gynocentrism because there will always be a man giving up something to a woman just because she’s a woman.

In democracies it isn’t just the FI that gets exacerbated to win votes. Any identifiable and isolatable group can be exacerbated by being convinced they are oppressed and thus need to vote against an oppressor group. But “all women” is the biggest group you can isolate. Unless we are invaded by space aliens in which case we could have a “all humans” group.

Life in China sucks. Its a hard knock life, for them. Its so hard, thankless, and miserable there, that the workers sometimes commit suicide right there at work. … Your average Wal-Mart presents to you (for your own personal consumption) the entire GDP of China. Just drive to Wal-Mart, take what you want from China, and pay next to nothing for it because we paid them virtually nothing to build it.

GDP alone doesn’t tell as much as Per Capita GDP. We are light years ahead of China per capita. A poor American has a better lifestyle than an average Chinese.

But IBB, I don’t lose sleep over the quality of life of the Chinese. If it were not for the factories they are currently laboring in, they’d instead be laboring in rice patties and worrying about the next plight and famine.

It’s true. Lots of Ruskies. The women are all of the profession of Gold-digger. The men put up the price of real estate and I can only trust that this accounts for the fact that house-prices here (including my own) have in the last year risen by twelve per cent.

@Boxer

Couldn’t find that passage in my copy Order of Things about De Beauvoir – no index and no reference in the notes, so instead I read the excellent (and also funny) final section about Psychology and Ethnology.

Couldn’t find that passage in my copy Order of Things about De Beauvoir – no index and no reference in the notes, so instead I read the excellent (and also funny) final section about Psychology and Ethnology.

Foucault never calls de Beauvoir out by name. It’s sorta subtle, and I didn’t “get” that joke until last summer, when a colleague told me that the paragraph was lampooning her (and her boyfriend, JP Sartre). Read in context, it’s laugh-out-loud funny.

I haven’t read *The Order of Things* in years, and don’t know exactly where it is in any specific pressing. Aside from a casual reference to the aforementioned drubbing, linked above, I haven’t found a specific page number.

It’s true. Lots of Ruskies. The women are all of the profession of Gold-digger. The men put up the price of real estate and I can only trust that this accounts for the fact that house-prices here (including my own) have in the last year risen by twelve per cent.

Russian billionaires aren’t stupid. I’m sure life there for them is not all what I would see in a Viggo Mortinson/Naomi Watts movie like Eastern Promises. But they didn’t become billionaires because they were stupid.

I work in technology and as a result, work with a lot of foreigners. We talk. And I ask them, where in the world is the one place they would want to live if they could afford to live there and the plurality of their responses are London. You very well might have the most desired city in the world in which to live. God Save the Queen and all that. It should come as no surprise to any of us that London is where all the money in the world is flowing.

I mean personally, I love Phoenix and all and I loved living in Boston, but if it was entirely up to me… Singapore, Monte Carlo, London, and Manhattan would be my first four picks were it not for the $$$$$$$$$$$$

Explain, ‘dear 8oxer’, how contemporary China is communist. I agree that it follows antifeminist policies.

I judge people on the internet with a simple criteria: perceived cognitive ability. In plain language, this means that you’ll only find me in protracted arguments/discussions with people who are demonstrably brainier and/or better read than I. My time is valuable, as are the resources of this blog, and I use these commodities (little Marxist pun there) to learn new things.

Everyone here understands what you are saying. But I think you are missing the big picture here, the ultimate difference between life in the West vs life in China. Here I’ll be very exact. Life in China sucks…

This is all fine and dandy; but, I don’t think Chinese life sucks worse than Brazilian life, or the life lived by the average slumdweller in Bangalore. Why are the Chinese successful in staving off the rapid transformation that is currently plaguing Brazil and India, and which has pretty much succeeded in destroying the family life in North America?

I think the Chinese approach the feminist problem, intellectually, in a very effective fashion, and its one that people here ought to adapt for a North American audience.

Basically, Marxist theoreticians seem to harp on the feminist hangup with “power” and “resources”. It’s a modified response to the old Soviet one, which portrayed feminists as the product of the decadent west, but they’ve improved upon it with themes that could have been pulled straight from this blog.

The Chinese Communist Party also laughs at repeated attempts to pass American style divorce legislation, or establish the sorts of family courts we see here. (I’d post another link, but I think one is the limit before I get put into auto-moderation).

The philosophical response to feminism has been to call the feminists out on their actual motives, which are rooted in what Marxists call “reification”. Feminists peddle their poison by convincing average people that their spouses are out to get them, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy. This leads to atomization within the family and in society at large, and makes the married couple easy prey for capital to swoop in and start the exploitation process. All this probably sounds very foreign, but it’s congruent to a lot of Biblical and American themes too.

This is all fine and dandy; but, I don’t think Chinese life sucks worse than Brazilian life, or the life lived by the average slumdweller in Bangalore.

Why not? You should.

If I had to choose where to live and I only 3 choices (Rio, Bangalore, and Bejing) then it would be in that order. And its not even close.

Why are the Chinese successful in staving off the rapid transformation that is currently plaguing Brazil and India, and which has pretty much succeeded in destroying the family life in North America?

I already explained it. Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, and some nations in Africa and Eastern Europe probably have it worse than China for the “average” citizen but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that China might very well have one of the lowest standards of living in the world. You can’t grow feminism in a nation within our “flat world” where people are forced to do with “less.” Feminism is very expensive and it can only flourish is people are willing to pay for it. Here we are willing. In China they aren’t because they can’t. Why worry about unilateral divorce law when most of the people in the city don’t even have a refrigerator yet?

You didn’t get the point either. I was mirroring the argument by making a mere argument by assertion, mirroring the argument insofar as Brad maintained guided evolution was “illogical” but didn’t provide any supporting argumentation – a mere argument by assertion. The point is anyone can make a mere argument by assertion.

There is no evidence that guided evolution happened or was used. Would you like to provide evidence that it was? Expecting people to consider it as an actual possibility sans evidence is in fact illogical. Theoretical possibility? Sure, and a quick analysis quickly finds that miraculous intervention is needed to make it work; using much more intervention than a “special creation”.

Calling other species “prototypes” and “experiments” is the fallacy of begging the question; this is not what they are if guided evolution is true. And this argument can be turned on its head. So why then didn’t God design the universe such that the things He wanted created would arise through natural processes? Why instead would He design a “faulty” universe where He keeps having to intervene to get the types of things He wants created to exist? Not that I accept this argument either, but saying “God wouldn’t do it this way” is a claim to know the mind of God.

When you want us to consider guided evolution as a possibility – how large are the evolutionary steps that God is supposed to have used? Small steps each generation? The maximum change the biology supports? Note that a fish can’t give birth to a monkey – so there’s a maximum limit to the “natural” change possible with each step, absent miraculous intervention.

Immediately, you end up with millions if not billions of steps to go from one life form type to another. I provided a list of 6 “types” of different lifeforms in increasing complexity. That represents at least 6 million transitional lifeforms, where each “step” is a lifeform which is a different species from it’s “grandparent” species. Of those 6 million evolutionary steps, 5.999 million have gone extinct and no longer exist. Under a guided evolution model, 99% of lifeform designs are transitioned through and discarded.

When an intelligent designer creates a design and discards it, that is called a “prototype”. No fallacy involved, simply describing things with the most apt word.

That being the case, the fossil record, as well as genetic evidence, give me reason to think it’s the convoluted multi-step chain.

99.999% of the transitional lifeforms guided evolution predicts are missing, and you think that’s evidence for the theory? You’re rationalizing the evidence to fit your theory, rather than using the evidence to find the best fit theory.

This is not the proper relation of Windows to DOS; Windows is based on DOS. Imagine instead there is a master program embedded in the universe, which unfolds the lower-levels first, and then the higher-levels which are based on the lower-levels. You know that “evolution” is from the Latin “evolutio” which means “unfolding”, right? Moreover, imagine if the code in DOS is incomprehensibly larger than it needs to be – which is the case for “simpler organisms” but with an order of magnitude more base pairs in their DNA as compared to humans – so that “evolving” DOS into Win 8.1 actually involves no more than recycling and reorganizing code chunks.

Windows and DOS are different Operating Systems. Early versions of Windows ran on DOS, but that’s no longer the case. It’s a far simpler progression than life, and it’s still not something that can be “guided evolution” into existence (where each step is “better” than the previous one). That’s evidence against guided evolution life (without miracles), because both life and software are information systems defined by a “source code” – but life has a lot more physical/chemical constraints in what you can do. If you can’t do it with less constraints, what does that say about doing it under more constraints?

Your theory of “unfolding” doesn’t fit the actual genetic evidence, which is that the “simple” lifeforms have tiny genomes compared to the more complex ones.

@BrainyOne:so that “evolving” DOS into Win 8.1 actually involves no more than recycling and reorganizing code chunks.
Nope. It’s more than that.
DOS has 3 views of memory. Conventional, Extended and Expanded.
The final version of Microsoft DOS, MS-DOS 6.22, could only (using its own memory manager), use up to 64MB (extended or expanded) RAM.
With a third-party memory manager, up to 256MB of RAM.
Your problem, in “evolving” DOS into Windows 8.1,
is that the structure SIMPLY DOESN’T EXIST for doing so.
DOS is 16 bit. Unable to access more memory unless you decide to use some fancy memory overlay, that will immediately break compatibility with (basically all) existing DOS program that follow (for example), the LIM EMS standard.
Besides which, the smallest unit of RAM stick you can buy nowadays, is much bigger than 256MB
AND
I/O works differently too, so it is extremely difficult to build a modern machine that can run MS-DOS (I haven’t used FreeDOS) flawlessly.
I know this because I build and work with legacy systems everyday.

The philosophical response to feminism has been to call the feminists out on their actual motives, which are rooted in what Marxists call “reification”. Feminists peddle their poison by convincing average people that their spouses are out to get them, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

It can’t even start because the women have to start it and they can’t be bothered. They have too many other real pressing issues that concern them. I can not even fully explain how “expensive” feminism is to a community and to a civilization. It is enormously expensive. It taxes everything. It simply can not exist (could not even start) in the absense of wealth such that is everyday life in China. It will only occur in the wealthiest of societies.

Did you ever watch Mary Poppins as a kid? Classic 1965 Disney movie, everyone here should watch it with their kids. Okay, the household in question exists in a Victorian home in 1910 London, the one time and place where London was the absolute lifestyle PEAK in the entire world, God Save the Queen. The man of the house works at a bank doing (what? I don’t know?) but he can afford on just his one salary to support a house payment for his British palace, a maid, a cook, a beautiful Julie Andrews for a nanny for his two children, and a stay at home wife. He had more real earning power than an architech Mike Brady had in Los Angeles California in 1969. This is all fiction but what does his ficticious wife do all day in that house with all that help for her two kids? Feminism. She is afforded the cost associated with entertaining the concept of the first wave of feminism, that is THE RIGHT TO VOTE! Do you honestly think that if she had to bust her @ss all day cleaning that house, preparing the food, and working another job outside the home (tack on another 40 hours there) that she would have worried about her not being able to vote for members of her parliment? Not even close.

Take that type of thinking and draw that out to any other nation in the world that is in pure poverty. If a woman is tending to 3 or 4 kids, working 40-50 hours to add to her husbands meager wages, and trying to keep up the house, you think for a second she has any time to worry about her right to vote, divorce her husband if she isn’t happy, or murder her unborn child? Feminism thrives only in wealth, not poverty.

Look at democratic places where there is wealth. Japan is rampant with feminism, so much so that the term “grass eaters” was coined there, the first MGTOW movement. Japan was so wealthy enough (in a pure capital sense) for feminism that women simply stopped breeding and the country is turning into a debt ridden old-age-home. They don’t have to worry about building taller and taller buildings, no one moves there and they stopped having kids. Tall modern buildings (where the nation’s citizens actually live in them, not just build them for the foreigners to live in like what is happening in Shanghai) generally = Wealth. South Korea, largely the same thing, wealth and feminism. North Korea has NOTHING except anger and envy of South Korea and Japan. The people have nothing to eat, the women have no resources to extract from their husbands or government, you’ll see NO feminism there.

There is a very small window of oppurtunity to incubate and grow the feminist imperative. You need to have a largely free society of people where the average citizen has some relative abundance of wealth. And in real terms, the majority of the people in the West are wealthy compared to the rest of the world. I leave it to Megan to explain why.

That was funny, but unintentionally so on Miss Mead’s part. For those who didn’t read it, she describes herself as follows:

I’m just trying to figure out how to be holy so I can get to heaven, where I want to be the patron saint of lifeguards. My perfect day includes a nap, my gold shoes, a game of scrabble, gluten free brownies, absolutely no surprises, and a great phone conversation. If you want, you can email me at cmead@lifeteen.com, or follow me on Twitter at LT_Christina.

I found it hilarious that she wants to earn her way into Heaven (Huh? What do they teach in catechism class these days?) where she can become the patron saint of lifeguards (why do I think the picture in her head is more like this than this?)

A cell genome has no harcoded limit to its size (like the RAM addressed by an operating system), but is instead limited by reliability of the replication process. Even the transition from genophore-carrying cells (without a distinct nucleus) to chromosome carrying cells (with a nucleus) is not impossible. The idea behind it is a cell being hijacked by a large membrane-bound virus which subsequently stays in the lysogenic cycle indefinitely and gradually gains genes from the host genome. The next step is duplication and specialization of virus-originated chromosomes in the ‘walled-off’ compartment. To reliably exceed the limit of two ‘types’ of chromosomes requires developing a microtubular spindle apparatus.

^ How accurate was that quote from “Blade Runner”?
Tyrell: [Tyrell explains to Roy why he can’t extend his lifespan] The facts of life… to make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it’s been established.
Batty: Why not?
Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutation give rise to revertant colonies, like rats leaving a sinking ship; then the ship… sinks.
Batty: What about EMS-3 recombination?
Tyrell: We’ve already tried it – ethyl, methane, sulfinate as an alkylating agent and potent mutagen; it created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before it even left the table.
Batty: Then a repressor protein, that would block the operating cells.
Tyrell: Wouldn’t obstruct replication; but it does give rise to an error in replication, so that the newly formed DNA strand carries with it a mutation – and you’ve got a virus again… but this, all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.
Batty: But not to last.
Tyrell: The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long – and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy. Look at you: you’re the Prodigal Son; you’re quite a prize!
Batty: I’ve done… questionable things.
Tyrell: Also extraordinary things; revel in your time.
Batty: Nothing the God of biomechanics wouldn’t let you into heaven for.

Far too few people on this planet regard the beauty and majesty of Blade Runner. We are combining Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Ridley Scott, and Vangelis. Perfection. The perfect science fiction movie.

It’s superb Blade Runner was even finished.
There is also a marvel comic of it you can download online.
the game is brilliant, merely spoiled by the fact that now Pauley Perrette (spelling) is turning out to be anti-male. Can’t have everything unfortunately.

India’s goddess worship and any other remnants of its “golden age of great vedic civilization” that insecure Indian men like to harp on about in front of westerners does not translate into even humane treatment of real live human women on the ground. A woman has to watch her back there 24/7 and this is what I drill into the heads of all the naive American women doing the eat, pray, love, yoga circuit. Many of them return with PTSD symptoms.

My husband was more than happy to get out of there as well. He said there’s no way in hell he would raise our daughter there. And he’s Indian.

As much as I do think there are interesting things going on in China w.r.t. feminism and such, I don’t think there was much deeper thought to the divorce law changes than the fact that previously, women got half in a divorce, so women had picked up the frivorce trick. It’s smarter in China than America since women are scarce there relative to men, so the chances of getting another husband are better. The change is simply a simplistic overcorrection. China, lacking give-and-take in its political process, tends to stumble drunkenly back and forth between extreme “solutions” to problems. Most likely some high-level politicians got fleeced so they decided to change the divorce laws, I doubt there’s much deeper societal significance.

If I knew the exact moment when God was to call me home, I would want to be sitting there, surounded by my wife, my children, my grandchildren, and great grand children, holding a dove and giving them a monologue.

“I’ve written things and spoke to people my family wouldn’t believe. Discussions with hair brained feminists all of whom feel that have less in life than they are deserving. A screaming screed from an atheist on a full PCP bender. A BPD sociopath as she ran screaming from a couort of law. 4 Occupy Wall Street protestors who lacked even the basic cognitive ability to defend even one thing that they were protesting. All these moments (cough)… will be lost…. (cough) in time. Time… to die…”

‘However, the thing I’m going to focus all my baffling attention on is the fact that every train is delayed. You may well have ruddy-faced analysts telling you that: “We’re actually running a service with 79% of trains running on time.” But take it from me. A man at the fried-chicken smelling coal-face. Almost every single train to and from work is delayed.’ – Oli Beale

No. The one-child policy (or, translated from the Chinese name, “policy of birth planning”) only applies to 40% to 63% of the population, depending on whether you’re talking to China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission or American academics. Specifically, the policy applies to urban married couples who are part of the nation’s Han ethnic majority.

“The problems men face that have been largely ignored by the Church are especially related to sexuality. The cardinal decried the “very fluffy, superficial kind of catechetical approach to the question of human sexuality and the nature of the marital relationship.” The problem was compounded by “an explosion of pornography” in society, he said, “which is particularly corrosive for men because it terribly distorts the whole reality of human sexuality.”

He favors a ban on porn and thus government largesse.

“In truth, the gift of sexual attraction is directed toward marriage, and any kind of sexual union belongs properly only within marriage,” said Cardinal Burke. “But the whole world of pornography corrupts young people into believing that their sexual capacity is for their own entertainment and pleasure, and becomes a consuming lust, which is one of the seven capital sins.”

Again the anti-porn, big gov stance.

“The cardinal faulted a post-Vatican II mindset suggesting there were no serious sins for the absence of men from confession. This false notion, which he called “lethal for men” is seen by example in the sin of masturbation. “Men have told me that when they were teenagers, they confessed the sin of masturbation in the confessional and priests would say, ‘Oh, that’s nothing you should be confessing. Everybody does that,’” the cardinal recalled.”

“Turning to liturgy, Cardinal Burke said, “There has been, and continues to be, serious liturgical abuses that turn men off.” He suggested that the Traditional Latin Mass holds for men, especially young men, a great appeal. “The Ordinary Form, if it’s celebrated very reverently with good music, can have the same strong positive effect on men,” he added. “Men don’t go in for this kind of corny approach to the Mass when it becomes some kind of feel-good session, or where there is irreverence.”

Ritual is needed to access the archetypal mind and advance human civilization so there’s some rationality in his call for more of it, as long as he doesn’t seek governmental means to bring it about.

“Cardinal Burke: Catholic Church has ‘Become Too Influenced by Radical Feminism’,” by John-Henry Westen, Life Site News, 6 Jan 2015

Catholics are much more resistant to feminism than Protestants or Jews, in my opinion (just comparing the existence of female ministers and rabbis to the Catholic priesthood can give one this idea).

This is an excellent speech.

“Unfortunately, the radical feminist movement strongly influenced the Church, leading the Church to constantly address women’s issues at the expense of addressing critical issues important to men; the importance of the father, whether in the union of marriage or not; the importance of a father to children; the importance of fatherhood for priests; the critical impact of a manly character; the emphasis on the particular gifts that God gives to men for the good of the whole society,” said Cardinal Burke. “So much of this tradition of heralding the heroic nature of manhood has been lost in the Church today.”

Far too few people on this planet regard the beauty and majesty of Blade Runner. We are combining Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Ridley Scott, and Vangelis. Perfection. The perfect science fiction movie.

As good as the film was, the book (DADOES, Philip K Dick, 1968) is even better. I am not a sci-fi fan, and I got a lot out of it.

No one has to tell me that it is about something more important than marketing or brand, but the prism still helps from time to time as a vehicle to look at problems and understand them.
IMHO, the Catholic Church has failed on the most basic point imaginable. And by that – as in: something like failing to recognize the difference between a plus sign and a minus sign … get those wrong and it is so basic you’ll never recover until you go back to start and start, all over again.
But the basic the CC failed on is that it has a product, and really only one product, and the product ONLY works on the long game, it never works on the short game:
Family
If the CC isn’t producing strong families, if it isn’t a safe haven to go to, to form as an adult and then find a spouse and make and grow and keep a family, then a thousand modernizations, new orders, revised traditions, reconsidered doctrinal applications, new songs, new liturgy, vernacular language, Vatican III, VI and XX … doesn’t matter … in all cases, no matter what, the church is offering something that people can get elsewhere, cheaper, and which in the long run, doesn’t matter for much.
The church preserves Aristotelianism and – I think – has Aristotelianism at its heart – somewhere under all of the rot and error, it is one of very few that contains and preserves logos, which leads me to two conclusions.
One: it is very sad – the logos is the hope to the Gentiles – if I may use Biblical language – and there otherwise isn’t a lot of hope.
Two: it’s a small point of hope in itself. Maybe if everything else falls, logos is all that will remain, and we can start over again.

I think TFH hits the nail on the head as usual. The FI provides the motivation, and democracy provides the means by which feminism takes root in developed countries. Feminism is largely a socially-engineered phenomenon that relies heavily on government to:

a) distribute wealth from males to females, and
b) enforce laws that penalize men or benefit women at the expense of men

A society cannot have feminism without an oversized government to enforce large scale social-engineering. It’s literally impossible. That’s not to say that all countries with an oversize government will be feminist. “Big government” is a necessary condition to produce feminism, just not a sufficient one. Hence there are many totalitarian societies that are anti-feminist. But a society cannot become feminist without first producing an oversized government.

Based on the above, the only sincere approach to reversing feminism (i.e. attacking the root cause) is to lessen the size of government and to reverse heavily misandric laws. Put another way, feminism can never truly be declared dead until these 2 things are absent.

I’ve heard from someone I know about the current status of the one child policy. Currently it doesn’t apply much in the rural areas, though they have a decreasing share of the population (and women in particular have moved to the cities very quickly). It doesn’t apply if you’re really rich — the policy is enforced primarily through fees which are ruinous to anyone middle class or below. If you’re rich enough you can afford to pay the fees; otherwise they’ll force you to abort.

Recently they’ve modified the one child policy in another way. If both husband and wife are only children, they can now have two children. However, this is not very practical for most families, as baby equipment (baby food, diapers, etc.) is extremely expensive in China. I guess it ends up being a bit of a specialty area, since there are far fewer children per capita than in other countries.

One thing I take issue with is the idea that the “wealth” of a country is a significant cause of feminism. It’s more accurate to say that “technology” is a significant contributing cause of feminism.

Why do I make this differentiation? Wealthy nations are more likely to possess widely available technologies that tend to shift power towards women and away from men (i.e. birth control, vacuum cleaners, dishwashers, jobs that don’t require significant physical strength, etc.) Overall, technology has been more of boon to women than men (so far) with regards to shifting power in their favor.

But it’s not true to say that the advancement of technology will always be in the direction of shifting power towards women and away from men. Technology is largely “blind” with regards to who it helps and who it hurts. Feminists are typically ecstatic about technological advancements that work in their favor. But it’s not hard to conceptualize a situation where the “shoe is on the other foot” and feminists are left shrieking and crying for the good old days.

Case in point is the coming Virtual Reality revolution, which TFH has mentioned several times. It’s debateable how long it will take before VR can produce a very life-like sexual experience. But once able to do so, it will shift power away from women and towards men in a massive way never seen before in human history. Betas and gammas will go from very limited access to pleasurable sex with hot women (without paying heavily), to virtually infinite access to sex with any hot woman (or women) they desire. In any type of situation one’s twisted brain can conceive of. It’s going to be a truly incredible transfer of power, and yet also a very sickening one to observe. As much as I would love to see feminism “die” in the West, I can’t say I’m looking forward to the means by which it will happen.

There’s a hilarious, but very,very NSFW “commercial” for the Occulus Rift headset that involves a teenage kid getting his first taste of VR sex. I won’t link to it here, one can google it if interested. The ad is fake but gives you a really good idea of how it could be used.

By the end of the commercial it’s obvious he won’t be spending any money in his lifetime on a diamond ring, let alone flowers. But imagine an entire generation of men acting that way. The effect would be profound and to be honest I’m not sure I even want to see it happen.

“Recently they’ve modified the one child policy in another way. If both husband and wife are only children, they can now have two children. However, this is not very practical for most families, as baby equipment (baby food, diapers, etc.) is extremely expensive in China.”

Most countries don’t manufacture specific food for babies to the extent we do. Babies drink their mothers milk and eat what the fruits and vegetables the adults eat, just blended or mashed up. Even diapers. In India where I stayed in the homes of my husband’s various relatives for example, the babies just pee and poop on the marble or tiled floors and adults clean it up with Detol. At night they would but a cloth diaper or a thick pad under the baby, and cloth diapers were used when the baby was taken out, but day to day in the home the babies go naked from the waist down when its hot and just pee and poo on the easily cleaned marble or tiled floors. These were all middle class families too. I’ve read that some people over here are starting to do what they call “elimination communication” with their infants which is the same diaper free thing. Supposedly a baby gets potty trained earlier with this method.

India has a two child policy which has not been legally implemented. Would be impossible to implement that but the slogan is there in the cultural narrative to discourage the nagging in laws in the joint family home from pressuring the daughter in law to keep popping out kids until she bears a son.

Feminists think women got it bad here? They should all inherit Indian in laws.

” not because they weren’t willing to scrimp and save, but because they didn’t have the 10 or 20 years to do so since they were already in the late 30s or early 40s and they may have already had children. For them, it is far too late to make do with what she had. She is already doing that. Marriage is (for her) ONLY an upgrade in lifestyle…. or don’t get married.”

I don’t see any other reason for a middle aged single mom with possibly grown or almost grown kids to get married unless it is for an upgrade, do you? She’s already had kids, whatever else a relationship can give her, sex, companionship, even love, can all be had without getting married.

“There is no evidence that guided evolution happened or was used. Would you like to provide evidence that it was? Expecting people to consider it as an actual possibility sans evidence is in fact illogical. ”

I would be happy to provide evidence. Take for instance the presence of endogenous retroviruses in orthologous loci or the same pseudogenes in primate (including humans) genomes. This is powerful evidence for common descent, since we know that ERVs and pseudogenes pass on to the descendents. Now (before you click over to answersingenesis to see what they have to say I’ll already tell you) yes it IS possible that separate types of primates were created separately, and the ERV and pseudogenes arose independently. But it’s extremely unlikely based on what we know about ERVs and pseudogenes. It’s also true that ERVs and pseudogenes have SOME functionality and so one could posit that God created the human and primate genomes with ERVs and pseudogenes initially present. However, the functionality isn’t tied to the PRECISE genetic sequence in the same way that it is for exons (e.g. coding genes). Moreover, we know that viruses can insert inside a genome and that (for instance) the GULO pseudogene is actually a “broken” gene that explains why we can’t synthesize vitamin C. Yes it’s true the pattern of ERVs doesn’t EXACTLY match the assumed phylogenetic trajectory. However it is possible that an ERV won’t be present in a descendent population which is present in an ancestral population, if the ERV was not fixed in the ancestral population and the descendent population evolved from ancestors without it. I realize this, in itself, is only relevant to primates. Still, it is powerful insofar as they go.

For the rest we have the fossil record to go by. Yes it’s possible every so often God intervened again using another special creation event to create new life forms. But why should we think He created life from non-life instead of from life?

And where is your positive evidence for special creation? Please present it if you have it.

“Theoretical possibility? Sure, and a quick analysis quickly finds that miraculous intervention is needed to make it work; using much more intervention than a “special creation”. ”

This “quick analysis” assumes that the genomes of ancestral populations are very much the same, or similar, to present populations. It is like being presented with a skin cell and a neuron and a kidney cell, noting the radical differences, and concluding there is no way that a single cell could possibly have divided in order to produce all these different kinds of cells, because you can’t get from a skin cell to a neuron without miraculous intervention. We are seeing the differentiated result, not the initial (“stem cell” if you will) undifferentiated precursor. You are still stuck in seeing this as “random” mutation rather than “unfolding”.

“When you want us to consider guided evolution as a possibility – how large are the evolutionary steps that God is supposed to have used? Small steps each generation? The maximum change the biology supports? Note that a fish can’t give birth to a monkey – so there’s a maximum limit to the “natural” change possible with each step, absent miraculous intervention. ”

Right, but see what I said before. A skin cell can’t transform into a neuron, absent miraculous intervention. Nevertheless they have the same “common ancestor” if you will. There is indeed a maximum limit to natural change – but we cannot assume the same in the past as it is today.

“Immediately, you end up with millions if not billions of steps to go from one life form type to another. I provided a list of 6 “types” of different lifeforms in increasing complexity. That represents at least 6 million transitional lifeforms, where each “step” is a lifeform which is a different species from it’s “grandparent” species. Of those 6 million evolutionary steps, 5.999 million have gone extinct and no longer exist. Under a guided evolution model, 99% of lifeform designs are transitioned through and discarded.

When an intelligent designer creates a design and discards it, that is called a “prototype”. No fallacy involved, simply describing things with the most apt word. ”

Yes, when the intelligent designer is a creature. But then, there is a reason for him to create prototypes, since he wants to get to the best design. No, when the intelligent designer is an omniscient God. He does not “discard” design. They are eternally in His mind. The fact that not all of them are present today doesn’t mean a thing. He does lots of things we don’t really understand. Can you tell me exactly why God wants the configuration of dry land vs. oceans on Earth to be exactly the way it is? Can you tell me exactly why God wants the stars in the universe to be what they are? Until you can, don’t reproach me with not knowing why He wanted certain lifeforms on the planet 100s of millions of years ago that don’t exist today.

“99.999% of the transitional lifeforms guided evolution predicts are missing, and you think that’s evidence for the theory? You’re rationalizing the evidence to fit your theory, rather than using the evidence to find the best fit theory.”

Um, no. Guided evolution doesn’t predict any particular set of transitional lifeforms. Moreover, the “no transitional fossils” argument is among the weakest anyway EVEN WHEN used against traditional “random” mutation evolution – small changes in the genotype can have profound changes in the phenotype, as we know. I frankly did not reject “random” mutation evolution on that basis (for other reasons, yes).

“That’s evidence against guided evolution life (without miracles), because both life and software are information systems defined by a “source code” – but life has a lot more physical/chemical constraints in what you can do. If you can’t do it with less constraints, what does that say about doing it under more constraints? ”

God is not a master computer programmer. Sure life contains information but it is not DEFINED by a source code. Anyway, the whole point is that I am claiming all the information necessary for complex life to form was present at the formation of the planet, without special intervention from God needed after that. Of course I am NOT denying that that information was, in the final analysis, originating from God. I think your whole difficulty lies in a desire to anthropomorphisize God.

“Your theory of “unfolding” doesn’t fit the actual genetic evidence, which is that the “simple” lifeforms have tiny genomes compared to the more complex ones.”

This is not true always. It’s called the “C-value paradox”. For instance, single-celled amoebas have been found with genomes over 100 times longer than the human genome.

Cheers to the ex-wife of Harold Hamm. She is truly fighting the good fight against the patriarchy.

Harold Hamm, chief executive of oil driller Continental Resources who is embroiled in a bitter divorce, offered to pay his former wife $974.8 million, but she rejected a hand-written check delivered to her legal team, his lawyer said on Tuesday.

You earn money from preaching, you instantly have a spiritual conflict of interest.

I guess Paul was ignorant of this.

[1Co 9:9-11 KJV] 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he [it] altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, [this] is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, [is it] a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

You are pretty strong in your heresy. Many lay preachers are quite corrupt. Lacking the money aspect does not deliver men from themselves.

it’s that the more responsible and virtuous people happened to own houses.

That would be true, just like many other ideas that are twisted today, such as college attendance making someone smart. The truth is that the smart go to college (in general) and do well. Just attending doesn’t help, nor does owning a house, nor does just being “married”….

Though

I’m saying that if a man is neither of those, he won’t be by getting married.

Are you really arguing no men become more responsible after they marry? That is a fairly dumb statement if so. They may have had some elements in place, but having a wife and children that depend on you has a way of adjusting priorities. I find it hard to believe you have not seen that yourself, unless you are not married of course.

My wife didn’t make me into a responsible individual, but the responsibilities did change me.

(speaking of the things of life)And a man she marries has to have those things.

Are you asserting this for all marriages? I can name at least 2 of my children who married without this. One is claiming to push for them, but does not have them and is unlikely to acquire any of them soon.

I would agree the debt view is a huge problem, but it is not the requirement for marriage you note among a large part of the population.

That is a good point. I think the Stanton’s of the world do as well, which is why they over-focus on the gatekeeper role of women realizing it is impossible in today’s environment. Women do have power in even an ungoldly marriage, as Peter wrote, but it is a more subtle form of power that often gets confused with the more active ones we are used to today.

Empath,

Nit picking

That would be an ongoing trait of mine in many areas, for better or worse. It is great sometimes and a challenge in others.

The problem that got me started here was saying that you had to completely oppose marriage or throw in with all Stanton was saying. That was more than hyperbole, it was a common statement of “fact” in these threads.

I see the modern system as VERY messed up, but I also think that we don’t need to crucify (with our words) every idiot and claim they are worse than the alternatives.

Ballista,

I don’t know if I reached your e-mail or not. But I notified you that I got a transcript made of the Stanton video

I am impressed. I thought about writing a few things down, but I could not transcribe the whole thing. I would be interested in a copy if you ever send it further or post it someplace.

====

I am skipping a bunch of comments that I may or may not look at later. Any lack of reply is due to a lack of time to spend here, not disinterest. I may be idiotic myself at times, but I do find this can help me refine my thinking process, so it is valuable for me.

“My wife didn’t make me into a responsible individual, but the responsibilities did change me.”

Because you already had the responsible gene in you. There are women and men for whom having children don’t change them one iota.

I don’t see how hi-tech fantasy sex will change the mating game anymore than porn and sex toys as changed it currently. Both have changed it somewhat, sure. But the guys and gals using fleshlights and vibrators still desire human sexual interaction, don’t they?

“every so often” would not be enough to make the world we have today. Contrary to an earlier claim, we see plenty of designed things in our world. I named a few areas myself earlier. We only find guided “evolution” when people are trying to prove unguided “evolution”.

IBB,If I had to choose where to live and I only 3 choices (Rio, Bangalore, and Bejing) then it would be in that order. And its not even close.

Are you sure you don’t have these backwards? I would never want to live in the middle one and the debauchery and corruption in the first would make it nasty for most. At least you would have order in the last and a hungry people to witness to. That might be costly to my life, but I would rather do something with a purpose than live in a hedonistic hell hole or an extremely poor one, that leans toward the same problems.

Because you already had the responsible gene in you. There are women and men for whom having children don’t change them one iota.

You don’t know me very well, do you?

I never claimed I totally lacked drive prior to marriage, but to claim I would still have been where I am without marriage is not thinking very well. Marriage has definitely changed me for the better. I can admit that without buying the message that a woman must clean up a man. I never have been one to follow the demands of others (besides God), let alone my wife. I will value her input when appropriate because I am not stupid to ignore valuable insight, but she will never be my boss. Yet I have still improved in my marriage, at least to a point….

I don’t think that it is The City wherein the foreigners seek to live – not unless they have a thing for bad sixties architecture (The Barbican – like the Maze that housed the Minotaur ; once in you can never find your way out). The London they want to move to is in the City of Westminster or better still The Borough of Kensington and Chelsea – which is where Madonna went.

I would be happy to provide evidence. Take for instance the presence of endogenous retroviruses in orthologous loci or the same pseudogenes in primate (including humans) genomes. This is powerful evidence for common descentdesign,…

Fix that for you. BrainyOne just proved the point I made a few days ago up-thread, where I wrote,
“Even there I am being absurdly generous: all the “evidence” for the Old-Earth myth is either circular, and/or contradictory, and/or based on supposition, and/or fits the Young-earth model as well or better.”

God exists, and He didn’t use a bunch of trial and error, and we don’t have to have endless childish debate about the degree of impossibility of alternate “theories”, because He told us how He did it. Definitive proof here. Rejecting that is now officially in the realm of willful ignorance. Take God at His word… or don’t take Him at His word… but be prepared for the consequences either way.

I know, because you said so, that you are a fan of the Greeks, though on reflection was it perhaps their military capability that impressed you?

What then are your views as to The Thaetetus of Plato where Socrates effectively sets out what I understand to be the earliest version of the argument from design. I ask, as of course, some of us do not necessarily share your belief in the literality of Genesis, though that of course, does not negate the possibility of a creation.

If I had to choose where to live and I only 3 choices (Rio, Bangalore, and Bejing) then it would be in that order. And its not even close.

Are you sure you don’t have these backwards? I would never want to live in the middle one and the debauchery and corruption in the first would make it nasty for most. At least you would have order in the last and a hungry people to witness to. That might be costly to my life, but I would rather do something with a purpose than live in a hedonistic hell hole or an extremely poor one, that leans toward the same problems.

Its not even close Brad. We had athletes that the US Olympic committee wanted to send to Bejing but they declined not because they didn’t want to play for the United States in the Olympics. It was instead that they were worried about their health breathing the air there. I’m not even kidding. Its that bad. Bejing (as is most of China) is awful.

How did it get so bad for China? China is the manufacturing the plant for the whole entire (now very “flat”) world. You have almost 1.6 billion Chinese people building all the plastic crap for 6 billion people to consume because that nation is the lowest price point for well formed labour. You want a cheap consumable built (pretty much anything under $300), build it in China. Sure, there might be places in the world where the people work even cheaper than the Chinese, but international industry is not building their plants in those countries as they can’t depend on the citizens to actually show up to work in the morning.

Yes Brad, a certain percentage of the Brazilians in Rio channel Genesis and the city of Sodom and live out hedonist debauchery (the penises enters ALL holes and the ‘ginas and butts allows ALL entry) one Tuesday in February every year, but that is a very very small percentage of the Brazilians. The majority of them are good, family centric, hard-working Catholics, who resent that Fat Tuesday nonsense and very much love Rio and proudly regard their city as the most beautiful city in the world. We’ll all see it for two weeks up close on the television in just 17 months. And Bangalore? I’m pretty sure it not ALL what you would see in Slumdog Millionaire and you and I can breathe the air. Can’t say that about much of the East coast of China now can we?

Bibi,

Because you already had the responsible gene in you. There are women and men for whom having children don’t change them one iota.

You don’t know me very well, do you?

I never claimed I totally lacked drive prior to marriage, but to claim I would still have been where I am without marriage is not thinking very well. Marriage has definitely changed me for the better.

Bibi is not really talking about you Brad (the individual) per se. Its great that marriage changed you for the better. That is not Bibi’s point.

The point Bibi is making is that there are women and men whom getting married and having children don’t change them one iota. Bibi is correct. These people exist even if you are not one of them.

Some people are simply not responsible. And they are never going to be. Marriage will not make them that way, certainly not marriage 2.0. Our government is flat out wrong that by making it easier to buy a house you turn irresponsible people into responsible people. But you can’t talk to these people in authority who believe that because they pretty much see the world the same way you do. And its a shame. We all suffer for their stupidity.

I don’t see how hi-tech fantasy sex will change the mating game anymore than porn and sex toys as changed it currently.

Look at the bigger picture by looking at what is fundamental about marriage. Women are hypergamous. Women marry for resources. Men have higher s-x drive. Men marry for s-x. That is Genesis right there Bibi.

I don’t think you understand what these guys are talking about when they say high tech fantasy s-x. Free on-line porn affects the marriage rate but not as much as a “s-xbot” would because his hand will never feel like her ‘gina. Think about it. If the “high tech fantasy s-xbot” has the touch and smell and feel of a flesh and blood woman (the genital parts specifically), why would a man ever marry? His “s-xbot” would never age, never die, never have s-x with another man, never frivorce him, never go to a judge to file a restraining order or go to a lawyer to claim his house or property, never get her cash and prizes. She will sit at home, not spending a dime of his money, waiting patiently for his return from the office, where he can have s-x with her at his will. More to the point, he can collect at many “s-xbots” as he can afford, a true polygamous lifestyle had by any and all men (not just the AMOGs.) This is a MGTOW dream. Say adios to marriage 2.0 as you know it as the one leverage women have over men (their booty) would no longer be as special as it once was. The only thing she can offer him is child production as the “s-xbot” has no eggs or uterous.

A s-xbot for women doesn’t sell the way it would for men. She can get s-x whenever she wants. What she really wants is financial provisioning. That is why she marries, not for s-x. So the VR s-x is a total game changer for marriage as women lose all their bargaining power. Now we are truly in the Biblical End of Days!

Both have changed it somewhat, sure. But the guys and gals using fleshlights and vibrators still desire human sexual interaction, don’t they?

For women yes, as the vibrator can’t work and bring home resources to the woman. For men the fleshlight does not have the look or feel of a flesh and blood woman. But when these guys are talking VR s-x, theya re talking about that robot in the movie Cherry 2000. They get that (with the VR high tech fantasy s-x) and well, to but it bluntly, they don’t desire human interaction with women. A woman’s leverage is gone. That is the whole point here. A s-x act can be digitized and automated into a s-xbot. They can build that in a robot for men much easier that they can build a robot slave for women to bring her home financial resources.

Take for instance the presence of endogenous retroviruses in orthologous loci or the same pseudogenes in primate (including humans) genomes. This is powerful evidence for common descent, since we know that ERVs and pseudogenes pass on to the descendents. … It’s also true that ERVs and pseudogenes have SOME functionality and so one could posit that God created the human and primate genomes with ERVs and pseudogenes initially present.

Your strong evidence isn’t, as you yourself acknowledge. Every single aspect of life that seems to support Common Descent also supports Common Design. The primary difference between the two is the number of lifeforms needed, and correspondingly the amount of time needed to execute the process.

So, if we can demonstrate that there isn’t enough time, or not enough lifeforms, then that excludes the Common Descent (through guided evolution) hypothesis. Note that because of the nature of the different mechanisms, the reverse is NOT true. This is why I found it silly you used a mirrored argument. The arguments are not equal, and treating them like they are is wrong.

For the rest we have the fossil record to go by. Yes it’s possible every so often God intervened again using another special creation event to create new life forms. But why should we think He created life from non-life instead of from life?

And where is your positive evidence for special creation? Please present it if you have it.

A creation POV sees the fossil record as the result of the Great Flood, not millions and billions of years. “fossil record!” is not a piece of evidence. “These observation of the fossil record support this model of origins” is how you use it.

By the way, I don’t call it “special creation”, merely creation. Why should I use your terminology that assumes it’s special? As for why believe creation – the incremental approach is insufficient, based on my expertise in analoguous systems. That leaves the DEFAULT of created design. It’s always an option when intelligent beings are involved, you don’t need to specially argue for it.

In fact, you’re arguing for a very intricate “special creation” that uses an unfolding process, but argue that creating all creatures simultaneously somehow needs more evidence to prove than putting all the design information in a starter creature. The latter method would leave behind a lot of evidence that hasn’t been observed.

But then, there is a reason for him to create prototypes, since he wants to get to the best design. No, when the intelligent designer is an omniscient God. He does not “discard” design.

So you concede that using the word “prototype” is not fallacious, then try to reframe as if I’m arguing something else, yet without acknowleding the concession. Not surprised that you do not hold yourself accountable for nonsensical accusations, but you’re going to have to step up your intellectual game if you want to be taken seriously. (Designs that aren’t used are effectively discarded, by the way.)

Um, no. Guided evolution doesn’t predict any particular set of transitional lifeforms. Moreover, the “no transitional fossils” argument is among the weakest anyway EVEN WHEN used against traditional “random” mutation evolution – small changes in the genotype can have profound changes in the phenotype, as we know. I frankly did not reject “random” mutation evolution on that basis (for other reasons, yes).

Did my argument at any point point to a “particular set” of transitional lifeforms? Um, no. What’s predicted by all evolutionary theories is that a set of such lifeforms exist. Whatever set of transitional lifeforms is supposed to exist, it hasn’t been observed, and it exists only in the imagination of evolutionary proponents. Odd for a theory that is supposed to have strong evidence for it.

If something is the common ancestor to fish and cats and monkeys, then there would exist many lifeforms that are in between. If you wish to argue that there doesn’t need to be such lifeforms, you’re no longer arguing for guided evolution.

God is not a master computer programmer.

You complain about other people making claims of what God does or does not do, and then you throw out nonsense like this? If God created the universe, who made the rules that govern computer logic and allows them to exist?

Sure life contains information but it is not DEFINED by a source code.

Then you don’t know what DNA is. Why do I care what you think on this topic when you fail to understand basic biology?

This is not true always. It’s called the “C-value paradox”. For instance, single-celled amoebas have been found with genomes over 100 times longer than the human genome.

So do you think we will find that the human genome is a subset of the amoeba genome? Amoebas are a surviving example of the master life-form that contains all life? Out of your entire post, this is the only item you have that I consider plausible support for guided evolution.

But size of genome of one creature isn’t enough to support your theory. If all the information is in the first lifeform which was lost as life specialized, then guided evolution is a constant decrease in genome size over time – something that has not been observed. It also isn’t evolution when information is being lost and degraded.

But when these guys are talking VR s-x, theya re talking about that robot in the movie Cherry 2000. They get that (with the VR high tech fantasy s-x) and well, to but it bluntly, they don’t desire human interaction with women. A woman’s leverage is gone. That is the whole point here. A s-x act can be digitized and automated into a s-xbot. They can build that in a robot for men much easier that they can build a robot slave for women to bring her home financial resources.

These robots sound expensive. There might be a thriving rental market.

People have speculated that VR tech will absorb the excess Betas and leave the marketplace wide open for Alphas… but who’s to say the Alphas won’t opt for VR as well? They too may prefer a VR 10 to an IRL 10.

Women who think men value interaction over sex don’t know men very well.

It wont be in either of our lifetimes, no Cherry 2000s. So for the MGTOW alive today, they wont get these. These robots are far too sophisticated because engineering “the flesh” is probably far more complicated and conveluted than what you and I see in a Stephen Spielberg movie like AI. There is no Cyberdine Industries designing this stuff. But I’m sure there is a market and if it does hit the market, the first place it will be is Japan, not the United States. And I’m sure the first Cherry 2000s will be extremely expensive (perhaps low 6 figures even) but they will be bought. That is much cheaper than a frivorce.

Silicone cover over stainless skeleton and animatronic servomotors would be enough, initially. A voice chip with vocaloid software included.

I don’t think there is a market there because what you have above is not all that distinct from a mere ‘RealDoll’ circa 1996. Those only went for $5000 each and I think maybe only 10,000 have sold worldwide. That is not a marriage 2.0 game changer.

Getting the flesh right will be the most expensive part because silicone just doesn’t do it. Guys are going to get real bored if she looks like a Barbie doll poured out of a plastic “mold” so to speak. Its less about the movement of her limbs than the texture of her skin.

I wrote ‘initially’. IBB, do you recall the path that cars and computers went through? Why do you think that this type of automaton would be different in this regard?

It’s not different at all. There was a market for Henry Ford’s first car and the 8086 personal computer. Ford, Steve Jobs, and Bill Gates, they knew what they were doing. They fulfilled a function that needed to be accomplished, something the market demanded. What function does this “s-xbot” need to fulfill? Whatever sells. MGTOW having s-x with a robot that feels like real woman… sells. That is the minimum it needs to be or, don’t build it. If she looks like a large silicone barbie doll, it will sell far less than the ‘RealDoll’ because this is much more expensive. We already have the data there, about 10,000 sold. That is not a game changer the way the orginal Model-T and Apple computer was.

What is the goal here? The experience doesn’t have to be a pure Cherry 2000 but it does have to enough to suspend the disbelief or else, don’t built it. Don’t even start. There should be a bare minimum to design to fulfill the s-xual gratification of the man purchasing. And the minimum is whatever the market demands that they are willing to buy.

“In the 1840’s, Marx concocted this bizarre theory: Since working men were oppressed by capitalist economies, then women were doubly-victimized by the effects of capitalism and patriarchy.

This is how Karl Marx and Frederick Engels explained it in their 1848 Communist Manifesto: “What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property… The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but production.”

In his 1884 book, The Origin of the Family, Engels elaborated on the theme of patriarchal oppression: “The overthrow of mother was the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took control in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude; she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.””http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0106roberts.html

“The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.” — Frederick Engels, The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State (New York, International Publishers, 1942), p.58

“The first condition of the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society.” [Engels, p.67]

“Women are the creatures of an organized tyranny of men, as the workers are the creatures of an organized tyranny of idlers.” — Eleanor Marx (Daughter of Karl), The Woman Question

“So in 1918, Lenin introduced a new marriage code that outlawed church ceremonies. Lenin opened state-run nurseries, dining halls, laundries and sewing centers. Abortion was legalized in 1920, and divorce was simplified.

In a few short years, most of the functions of the family had been expropriated by the state. By 1921, Lenin could brag that “in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under law.”

But Lenin’s dream of gender emancipation soon dissolved into a cruel nightmare of social chaos.

First, the decline of marriage gave rise to rampant sexual debauchery. Party loyalists complained that comrades were spending too much time in love affairs, so they could not fulfill their revolutionary duties.

Not suprisingly, women who were sent out to labor in the fields and factories stopped having babies. In 1917, the average Russian woman had borne six children. By 1991, that number had fallen to two. This fertility free-fall is unprecedented in modern history.

But it was the children who were the greatest victims. As a result of the break-up of families, combined with civil war and famine, countless numbers of Russian children found themselves without family or home. Many ended up as common theives or prostitutes.

In his recent book, “Perestroika,” Mikhail Gorbachev reflected on 70 years of Russian turmoil: “We have discovered that many of our problems — in children’s and young people’s behaviour, in our morals, culture and in production — are partially caused by the weakening of family ties.””

The truth is feminism is Marxist ideology that only ironically succeeded the most by acting as a parasite off the capitalist systems of the west. Using the vast wealth generated by capitalism to achieve Marxist ends.

from Lenin’s March 8th, 1921 speech on International Working Women’s Day:

“But you cannot draw the masses into politics without drawing in the women as well. For under capitalism the female half of the human race is doubly oppressed. The working woman and the peasant woman are oppressed by capital, but over and above that, even in the most democratic of the bourgeois republics, they remain, firstly, deprived of some rights because the law does not give them equality with men; and secondly—and this is the main thing—they remain in household bondage”, they continue to be “household slaves”, for they are overburdened with the drudgery of the most squalid, backbreaking and stultifying toil in the kitchen and the family household.

No party or revolution in the world has ever dreamed of striking so deep at the roots of the oppression and inequality of women as the Soviet, Bolshevik revolution is doing. Over here, in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under the law. The Soviet power has eliminated all there was of the especially disgusting, base and hypocritical inequality in the laws on marriage and the family and inequality in respect of children.

This is only the first step in the liberation of woman. But none of the bourgeois republics, including the most democratic, has dared to take oven this first step. The reason is awe of “sacrosanct private property.

The second and most important step is the abolition of the private ownership of land and the factories. This and this alone opens up the way towards a complete and actual emancipation of woman, her liberation from “household bondage” through transition from petty individual housekeeping to large-scale socialised domestic services.”

8oxer, still defending the corpse of Marx:And I’m sure all those peer-reviewed journal articles about “the Bolshevik movement” (LOL!) will be forthcoming, real soon now.

Actually there are entire books on the Soviets that explain in detail such things. Not just the Bolshevis (who, contra 8oxer’s scare quotes, actually existed) but the Mensheviks were in favor of divorce on demand and other elements of the feminist movement. The Soviets achieved in the 1920’s many of the feminist demands that did not arrive in the Anglosphere until the 1960’s.

Only someone ignorant of the history, or a True Believer still clinging bitterly to the notion that True Marxism has never reallly been tried – that with the right leadership, “Labor Battalions will be formed” would work out just fine…only someone like that would deny the facts regarding femnism’s connection with Marxism.

Would be interesting if contributors to Dalrock participate, but if not, observe some interesting conversations.

I read the original slatestar codex article and all, yes, all 1,000 comments. It became tiresome after a while, because the vast majority of commenters seem to carry the unstated premise of male – female interchangeability, i.e. the blank slate fallacy. Not to mention the legion of special snowflake NAFALT’s. There were a few, a very few, clear seeing men with comments, and I was surprised to see them.

To the credit of the commenters, there weren’t that many SJW robots. However, I am not sure what would be gained by participating in a second round of all that, because absent at least one or two shared premises it’s difficult to communicate. Since virtually all 37 flavors of feminism regard men as nothing more than inferior women (at best) or robots/ATM’s/livestock (more commonly), there isn’t much to be said.

The original article could be distilled to “Feminists, stop hurting shy men!”, and the vitriolic response boiled down to “NO! WE HATE YOU!”, so what is there to be said?

To put it another way: there’s no point in talking if no one is listening.

That is a good point. I think the Stanton’s of the world do as well, which is why they over-focus on the gatekeeper role of women realizing it is impossible in today’s environment. Women do have power in even an ungoldly marriage, as Peter wrote, but it is a more subtle form of power that often gets confused with the more active ones we are used to today.

The Stantons of the world are missing the whole point of marriage by embracing this fallacy. Feminists, as capitalists that they are, reduce everything to mere merchandise, for sale on some imaginary market. The reality is that human beings were designed to pair bond and raise children as a couple. (Whether one believes in God or evolution is irrelevant — in either case we were designed that way.)

Fulfilling our own inborn, biological potential is rewarding. It’s rewarding in a way that can’t be bartered for or bought. Feminists and other capitalist types don’t understand this, because they’re fundamentally anti-human. It’s part of a larger delusion, in which these people can’t have healthy relationships with anyone (even themselves) due to their hangup on “power” and other nonsense. The ancient Hebrews knew about this, and described it well in Ecclesiastes 5:10.

He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance with increase: this is also vanity.

I used to wonder why those short-rich divorcées seemed so unhappy, despite their windfalls from the chumps they had married and dumped. The bible answered my question before I asked it.

Actually there are entire books on the Soviets that explain in detail such things.

And, as usual, you can’t link to any.

Not just the Bolshevis (who, contra 8oxer’s scare quotes, actually existed) but the Mensheviks were in favor of divorce on demand and other elements of the feminist movement. The Soviets achieved in the 1920’s many of the feminist demands that did not arrive in the Anglosphere until the 1960’s.

No one who has even a minimal education in history would use a term like “the Bolshevik movement”. To begin with, the Bolsheviks weren’t a movement, they were a faction within a revolutionary conglomerate that renamed themselves the minute they took power.

Only someone ignorant of the history, or a True Believer still clinging bitterly to the notion that True Marxism has never reallly been tried – that with the right leadership, “Labor Battalions will be formed” would work out just fine…only someone like that would deny the facts regarding femnism’s connection with Marxism.

Feminism’s only connection with Marxism is between the ears of feminists and conspiracy theorists, like yourself. You take the spokespeople of feminism seriously, when they claim to be Marxists, because you are one with them, I assume.

8oxer, still defending the corpse of Marx:

For years, kooky “Anonymous Reader” followed Innocent Bystander Boston around this forum, vomiting up degenerate lies about his daughters and wife (AR’s own projected erotic fantasies, I have to assume). This is just more of the same, and doesn’t deserve riposte.

…But the basic the CC failed on is that it has a product, and really only one product, and the product ONLY works on the long game, it never works on the short game:
Family If the CC isn’t producing strong families, if it isn’t a safe haven to go to, to form as an adult and then find a spouse and make and grow and keep a family, then a thousand modernizations, new orders, revised traditions, reconsidered doctrinal applications, new songs, new liturgy, vernacular language, Vatican III, VI and XX … doesn’t matter … in all cases, no matter what, the church is offering something that people can get elsewhere, cheaper, and which in the long run, doesn’t matter for much.

Maybe it’s the narcissism of small differences, but I find it sorta refreshing to hear Catholics continually telling the libertines “no” on matters like divorce, abortion, and other such sacraments of our advanced industrial society. 😉

Take the good Cardinal’s speech, tame as it is in these quarters, and imagine it coming from a Protestant, Jew or Mormon cleric. I know. I can’t either. For all their other faults, the Catholics at least still have some men with balls left.

The church preserves Aristotelianism and – I think – has Aristotelianism at its heart – somewhere under all of the rot and error, it is one of very few that contains and preserves logos, which leads me to two conclusions.
One: it is very sad – the logos is the hope to the Gentiles – if I may use Biblical language – and there otherwise isn’t a lot of hope.
Two: it’s a small point of hope in itself. Maybe if everything else falls, logos is all that will remain, and we can start over again.

Do you mean Aristotle’s Λόγος or Christianity’s logos? There’s a bit of difference, there; though it’s likely I don’t know exactly what you mean. Can you expound?

“Your strong evidence isn’t, as you yourself acknowledge. Every single aspect of life that seems to support Common Descent also supports Common Design. ”

This is an illegitimate reduction of the hypothesis space. The alternatives are common descent (with one original design) vs. separate design for each species (or higher taxonomic level if you prefer). There is no a priori reason to think that each instance of design should be common in the latter case, since the designer is omniscient and omnipotent. However common descent puts constraints on the process – there are limits to how much change can occur in each iteration – whereas separate design puts no such constraints. Therefore when we see something consistent with common descent it is evidence for common descent and against separate design. However ERVs and pseudogenes are much stronger evidences still. They might not even have been designed as part of the genome initially anyway. Our background knowledge shows they can arise by accident (unlike, say, coding genes) – ERVs can insert inside a nucleus and pseudogenes can arise via a mutation to a previously functioning gene. Yes it is possible they are there due to design but it is also possible they are there due to accident – their functions also arising via accident. We view a wrecked car as designed but then damaged – even if the wrecked car is co-opted for some other function besides transportation later on. This is likely the case for ERVs and pseudogenes. WHY, out of all the ways a designer could have designed things, is it the SAME way that happens when a “bad” genomic event occurs (deleterious mutation in a gene, or invasion by a virus)? Moreover, their function is NOT a function of the exact DNA sequence in the same way it is for coding exons. WHY do the (slight) differences in ERVs mysteriously match up to what would happen if the phylogenies were correct and these differences arose via random mutation?

“The primary difference between the two is the number of lifeforms needed, and correspondingly the amount of time needed to execute the process. So, if we can demonstrate that there isn’t enough time, or not enough lifeforms, then that excludes the Common Descent (through guided evolution) hypothesis. ”

That is true. That is because common descent places constraints on the process. If it did not (frogs could give birth to pigs) there would be absolutely no way to distinguish between the two. So make the demonstration then!

“A creation POV sees the fossil record as the result of the Great Flood, not millions and billions of years. “fossil record!” is not a piece of evidence. “These observation of the fossil record support this model of origins” is how you use it. ”

The idea of special creation is not ridiculous in itself but it does not, in itself, entail a Great Flood. The idea that the fossil record is explained by the alleged Flood is ludicrous, unless you want to have God working miracles to ensure that the fossils show up in precisely the order they do in the geological column. If you insist on the Great Flood despite all evidence you need God working miracles to get the genetic diversity in the species we see today (if instead you speed up the mutation rate, everything is toast) OR ELSE something in the genome which could naturally “unfold” to that diversity, analogous to a stem cell, which was present then but isn’t present today – EXACTLY the kind of thing I’m proposing.

“By the way, I don’t call it “special creation”, merely creation. Why should I use your terminology that assumes it’s special? ”

“leaves the DEFAULT of created design. It’s always an option when intelligent beings are involved, you don’t need to specially argue for it. ”

We’re not arguing against design. We’re arguing about EXACTLY WHAT was designed.

“In fact, you’re arguing for a very intricate “special creation” that uses an unfolding process, but argue that creating all creatures simultaneously somehow needs more evidence to prove than putting all the design information in a starter creature. The latter method would leave behind a lot of evidence that hasn’t been observed. ”

It’s been observed all right, but you refuse to accept that different parts of the geologic column correspond to different times in the earth’s history, so…

“So you concede that using the word “prototype” is not fallacious, then try to reframe as if I’m arguing something else, yet without acknowleding the concession. ..”

No I don’t concede this. Using the word “prototype” in reference to God’s creative activity is, by definition, fallacious.

“Did my argument at any point point to a “particular set” of transitional lifeforms? Um, no. What’s predicted by all evolutionary theories is that a set of such lifeforms exist. Whatever set of transitional lifeforms is supposed to exist, it hasn’t been observed…”

No, not all evolutionary theories, not the punctuated equilibrium of Gould and certainly not the saltational theories of Goldschmidt (I think it was).

“If something is the common ancestor to fish and cats and monkeys, then there would exist many lifeforms that are in between. If you wish to argue that there doesn’t need to be such lifeforms, you’re no longer arguing for guided evolution. ”

Right, but there are many such lifeforms in between in the fossil record for fish, cats, and monkeys.

“You complain about other people making claims of what God does or does not do, and then you throw out nonsense like this? If God created the universe, who made the rules that govern computer logic and allows them to exist? ”

The precise relation of God to necessary truths is a more complicated philosophical topic that we can discuss here. But anyway insofar as we accept that God made the rules that govern computer logic that does not mean His operation in the world is that of a computer programmer.

“So do you think we will find that the human genome is a subset of the amoeba genome? Amoebas are a surviving example of the master life-form that contains all life? Out of your entire post, this is the only item you have that I consider plausible support for guided evolution. ”

Not a precise subset, no. Both amoebas and humans are going to be subsets of the master. But hey, you admit there is some plausible support, so life is good.

Now I ask you, just how does this enormous amoeba genome fit in with common design? It’s preposterous to think that a designer would need a genome 100X (actually, some are 500X) the size of a human for a one-celled organism, right? It’s like saying you would need 100X the number of lines of code for WordPad as for Windows 8. But I assume we both reject the traditional evolutionary explanation that it’s all “junk”. What’s it doing there? Isn’t it plausible to think there just might be in there the information necessary for evolutionary transformation to a new species? And if so, that’s because that’s how it was designed? I would really like your explanation as to what the designer was doing.

“But size of genome of one creature isn’t enough to support your theory. If all the information is in the first lifeform which was lost as life specialized, then guided evolution is a constant decrease in genome size over time – something that has not been observed. ”

How do you expect us to be able to observe it, not having access to genomes of creatures that lived long ago? And if the differentiation process is complete today, we’re not going to see decrease in genome size today.

“It also isn’t evolution when information is being lost and degraded.”

8oxerNo one who has even a minimal education in history would use a term like “the Bolshevik movement”. To begin with, the Bolsheviks weren’t a movement, they were a faction within a revolutionary conglomerate that renamed themselves the minute they took power.

Hairsplitting won’t save you, 8oxer. The Soviets practiced feminism, as one logically would expect a group who believed in the blank-slate theory of human behavior. The URL was posted above, perhaps in your skim-until-outraged leftist approach, you missed it.

V.I. Lenin, March 8, 1921; In a Supplement to Pravda No. 51. Signed: N. Lenin; Puhllshed according to the Supplement text

Excerpt:No party or revolution in the world has ever dreamed of striking so deep at the roots of the oppression and inequality of women as the Soviet, Bolshevik revolution is doing. Over here, in Soviet Russia, no trace is left of any inequality between men and women under the law. The Soviet power has eliminated all there was of the especially disgusting, base and hypocritical inequality in the laws on marriage and the family and inequality in respect of children.

As stated before, the Soviets achieved in terms of divorce laws, abortion laws, etc. in the 1920’s feminist dreams that were not considered in the Anglosphere until the 1960’s. You have no response to Shulamith Firestone’s Dialectic of Sex, no response to the words of Lenin, no response to the words of Marx all of which support the obvious conclusion that feminism is derived from Marxism. Instead you flail about with childlsh insults, namecalling, and SJW-like attempts to disqualify me rather than actually debate, like an adult human being.

No logic. Just rhetoric.
You’re in a hole, perhaps you should stop digging?

Women have no idea how women think. They clearly cannot predict what they themselves will be attracted to. When I tell a woman to her face “you don’t understand how women think”, I get surprisingly little resistance (although my frame is always one of amused mastery).

This is one of the most effective tactics I’ve learned in these quarters. I don’t think it’s exclusive to women, mind you. Burns wrote about it long ago…

Therefore when we see something consistent with common descent it is evidence for common descent and against separate design.

It is evidence for common descent AND common design (reusing code), but evidence against “separate” design. Nice try, but no cigar.

Additionally, you seem to treat the number of designs as some sort of constraint, where the large number of separate designs takes more work than creating a single master design. You seem to miss that with your unfolding model of life, more work is needed.

If the design for cats, dogs, humans, fish, whales, etc – are all crammed into a single organism’s genome – then the genome is then designed to boot-strap and specialize into each of those lifeforms over millions of generations. That’s extra information so that the unfolding is done properly. You have genetic code for all animals PLUS “unfolding” genetic code. Common design only needs the former, not the latter, so less work is needed, not more.

Yes it is possible they are there due to design but it is also possible they are there due to accident

Your baseless speculation is boring. In other words, your “evidence” can’t distinguish between the two models at all. So the only reason to believe your model is because of an active imagination.

That is true. That is because common descent places constraints on the process. If it did not (frogs could give birth to pigs) there would be absolutely no way to distinguish between the two. So make the demonstration then!

The idea that the fossil record is explained by the alleged Flood is ludicrous, unless you want to have God working miracles to ensure that the fossils show up in precisely the order they do in the geological column.

Geological column fossils are generally simple to complex, and when you look at the animal types represented, it reflects which would be able to react to a catastrophic flooding to delay its death. Doesn’t need special miracles.

If you insist on the Great Flood despite all evidence you need God working miracles to get the genetic diversity in the species we see today

Dogs being a single kind is all the evidence I need. One pair of dog-wolves is needed, not one for each breed/subspecies. There aren’t really that many kinds of animals.

No I don’t concede this. Using the word “prototype” in reference to God’s creative activity is, by definition, fallacious.

So you’re arguing against there being a first example of any lifeform? You’re going to argue against there being a beginning, because you don’t like the word “prototype”? If you accept that God designs things, you should have no problems with this word.

Right, but there are many such lifeforms in between in the fossil record for fish, cats, and monkeys.

Completely lacking fish-lizards, lizard-cats, and cat-monkies. 99.999% of what “should” be there isn’t.

But anyway insofar as we accept that God made the rules that govern computer logic that does not mean His operation in the world is that of a computer programmer.

The being that can create an planetary eco-system with lifeforms all based on a digital code is by definition a master programmer.

Now I ask you, just how does this enormous amoeba genome fit in with common design? It’s preposterous to think that a designer would need a genome 100X (actually, some are 500X) the size of a human for a one-celled organism, right? It’s like saying you would need 100X the number of lines of code for WordPad as for Windows 8. But I assume we both reject the traditional evolutionary explanation that it’s all “junk”. What’s it doing there? Isn’t it plausible to think there just might be in there the information necessary for evolutionary transformation to a new species? And if so, that’s because that’s how it was designed? I would really like your explanation as to what the designer was doing.

The enormous amoeba genome fits fine with common design. It’s still using DNA for its architecture.

I don’t know what the amoeba’s giant genome is for. I’m open to investigating it. In the meantime, you don’t know what it’s for either. It’s not strong evidence for an “unfolding” guided evolution. It’s plausible when seen in isolation, but one weighs all the evidence, not just the cherry-picked one that happens to be compatible with your pet idea.

How do you expect us to be able to observe it, not having access to genomes of creatures that lived long ago? And if the differentiation process is complete today, we’re not going to see decrease in genome size today

Then why do you expect anyone to believe your theory of guided evolution, completely lacking such evidence to support it? I’ve repeatedly said it works fine as a thought experiment on what God could do if He wanted to, but lacks the evidence to be considered as the actual historical reality.

It’s not anyone else’s problem that you created an untestable history of life’s origins. You’ve created an evidence free theory and asked people to disprove it. We don’t have the evidence to disprove it – we can just look at what we know and evaluate it as unlikely, and considering the complete lack of evidence, file it as not true until further notice.

Excerpt: One of the primary tasks of the Soviet Republic is to abolish all restrictions on women’s rights. The Soviet government has completely abolished divorce proceedings, that source of bourgeois degradation, repression and humiliation.

The Soviets converted fault based divorce to no-fault divorce in zones under their control in 1918. By 1921 that law applied to all regions under Soviet control, i.e. most of the former Russian Empire. No-fault divorce did not arrive in the US until 1969. Thus one of the goals of feminism, institutionalized polyandry, was a reality in the USSR generations before it developed in the US.

It will soon be a year now since complete freedom of divorce was legislated. We have passed a decree annulling all distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children and removing political restrictions. Nowhere else in the world have equality and freedom for working women been so fully established.

Another feminist goal accomplished, before 1920, in the USSR. Removing any distinction facilitates an AF-BB reproductive strategy and indirectly undermines the standard marriage arrangement. Feminism in the Anglosphere has long sought to demolish standard marriage, this should not be controversial in any way to observe.

So we see more evidence of the connection between feminism and Marxism. Of course, there is the game of No True Marxist that has been played for years by faithful leftists. That being a fallacy, there’s no point to it.

What constantly amazes me is how many women go out of their way to high-light red pill truths, albeit inadvertently. The girl in the youtube clip is a classic example, another Jenny Ericson in the making.

8oxer appears to have his work cut out for him. In addition to re-educating the androsphere, he also needs to do the same for the staff and readers of the Socialist Worker publication. An article from about 2 years ago shows why that is:

Excerpt:INESSA ARMAND, the first leader of the women’s department of the 1917 Russian Revolution, made the following observation: “If women’s liberation is unthinkable without communism, then communism is unthinkable without women’s liberation.” That statement is a perfect summary of the relationship between the fight for both socialism and women’s liberation–neither is possible without the other.

And the Marxist tradition has from its beginnings, with the writings of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, stood for the liberation of women. As early as the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels argued that the ruling class oppresses women, relegating them to second-class citizenship in society and within the family: “The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production…He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at [by communists] is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.”

Another excerpt:The leaders of the 1917 Russian Revolution understood not only the centrality of the family as the root of women’s oppression, but also the difficulties involved in realizing gender equality within the family as a precondition for women’s liberation in society as a whole. As Trotsky wrote in 1920:

” [I]n order to achieve the actual equality of man and woman within the family is an…arduous problem. All our domestic habits must be revolutionized before that can happen. And yet it is quite obvious that unless there is actual equality of husband and wife in the family, in a normal sense as well as in the conditions of life, we cannot speak seriously of their equality in social work or even in politics.”

The obvious underlying, if unspoken, premise in the above is the blank slate, interchangeable, equalitarian “men and women are exactly the same except women have babies” that underlies modern feminism. The destruction of the nuclear family? A clear goal of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, as well as 2nd stage US feminism.

@Anonymous Reader:
It’s amazing how deluded the women in the new thread are.
They genuinely believe any man that complains about woman/girl/female behaviour is a “misogynist”.
For me, I believe they are simply trying to get some guy to marry them and overlook her past or her “reactions to pointed questions” e.g. entitlement attitude, “I’ll tell the cops on you as you are creepy/angry”(LOL, sorry, I don’t there where you can stick me with that AND I also happen to run my own business along with other activities) and “how dare you slut-shame(because I was one (you can’t un-slut yourself, and STDs are the gift that keeps on giving along with being an alpha-widow))”
It’s a good thing women cannot buy a house on their own income alone.
That means they will have to put up with some “icky nerd”.
And, if he’s smart,
he’ll dohttps://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/07/23/hypergamous-arms-race-revenge-of-the-nerds/
orhttps://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/is-marcos-evil-for-conning-women-looking-to-trade-sex-for-financial-security/

(Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with a former cock-carousel rider, who probably has diseases and mental issues, winding up alone.
After all, the guy she is targeting, is one she “thinks is too stupid to know how women actually are”.

Extra: the Cupcake Club rules:
These are the relationship advice rules women pass among themselves:
Rule 1: Never reveal the cock count to any man whose wallet you are trying to attach to. Most men will figure you’ve been with a few guys, thinking boyfriends plus a couple of one night stands. If asked, always undercount, by a lot. If the man presses for an actual count, I know it is surprising since he should feel lucky that you’ve even shown any interest in him, let alone letting him fuck you, say the following to boost his ego: “Oh baby, I’ve only been with like 3 or 4 guys that were really special to me. But none of them made me feel like you.” This will make you seem special to him and help to entice him to commit his wallet to you. He doesn’t need to know that you’ve been used by more cocks than the urinals at a major beer fest. Unless he’s one of the few guys into porn stars or prostitutes, you don’t want him to think about all the cocks that have been there before him as that may cause him to be obstinate in committing his wallet to your service. Your cock count should only be shared with your closest girlfriends when comparing notes, or if you are done with your current wallet, either trading up to a thicker wallet or getting with that bad boy you’ve been fucking on the side, tell him so he will be destroyed and it will be easier to scrape him off (make sure you tell him he was never good enough for you in the sack, unlike all those other men).

Rule 2: Never tell your wallet about any of your wild sexual adventures or non-standard sex. He might want to have some of those adventures, or try some of that non-standard sex, but he’s not worthy, that stuff is reserved for your alpha boyfriend, which you are willing to do in order to keep the alpha boyfriend happy so he doesn’t dump you for some other cupcake.

Rule 3: Nothing is ever your fault. It is always a mistake that was caused by a man. Had an affair? Your husband’s fault for not giving you the gina tingles, or being away, or not making you feel sexy, etc. Made a mistake at work? Doesn’t matter how big it was, it was the patriarchy discriminating against you because you are a strong, independent, empowered woman. Had a car accident? It was the man’s fault for running that green light while you were busy posting that sexy selfie, making a facebook update, or texting that hot alpha that you want to bang. Whatever it is, look for a man to blame because you are perfect special snowflake and never do anything wrong.

Rule 4: When enticing a man to enter into a relationship beyond a one night stand, become a chameleon and adopt whatever will get him interested. This can be hobbies, political outlook, sports, pretending to enjoy sex with him whenever he wants it, whatever makes him think you are special and he needs you in his life. You don’t have to do it anymore once his wallet is committed to you.

Rule 5: Deny everything. Never admit to anything that might put you in a bad light or make you seem less than angelic. Even if caught red handed, always say “it isn’t what it looks like.” For example, your wallet walks in while your thug boyfriend is balls deep in you, just say “it isn’t what it looks like, I had just gotten out of the shower and was getting ready to use a bobby pin to put my hair up when I accidentally swallowed it and started choking on it. This nice man came in to give me the Heimlich maneuver, but that didn’t work, so he helpfully started trying to knock it out of me from behind.” Or your male boss catches you stealing from the till. “It isn’t what it looks like. I was putting the money up for safekeeping so some thief couldn’t steal it.” In short, come up with the most plausible excuse to cover for what you are doing. If they press the issue, change the subject. Scream and cry about how they don’t understand you, that it is that time of the month, that the world is just plain mean to women, etc.

Rule 6: Never keep your promise once you get what you want. Men should be thankful that you even deigned them with acknowledgement because you are just so awesome. Their expectations of you keeping your promise is just tacky and gauche.

Rule 7: Unless in wallet seeking mode, never give your vagina to a man who wants to please you, who listens to you, who is nice to you, etc. These men are only for use to get free stuff or do things for you. It is easier to manipulate them with the prospect that they might get “lucky” but always leave them with blue balls. If you give them your vagina, they might think they are in a relationship with you and that could make your use of them awkward.

Rule 8: Always give your vagina to an alpha thug if he wants it, regardless of your relationship status. However, if you have a wallet at home, be discrete if you aren’t ready to lose it. These men will treat you like shit, never listen to you, don’t care about your feelings, and fuck skanks with abandon, but they are exciting, mysterious, and a bit (possibly a lot) dangerous, setting the old gina tingling. Gina tingles take precedence over everything so never resist them, just fuck the guy without a thought or care.

Rule 9: Never have sympathy or empathy with your wallet. He is a tool, nothing more. If you divorce him, fuck him as hard as you can. Take as much of his stuff as you can, try to get most of his money, and minimize his time with any kids you might have had together. He is no longer worthy of your consideration or vagina. Doesn’t matter what he did for you in the past, it is just that, in the past. He is no longer useful except what you can squeeze out of him.

Rule 10: Emotion trumps facts, logic, and science. It doesn’t matter what the facts are. It doesn’t matter what logic says. Even if they are uncouth enough to bring up science, it doesn’t matter. What you feel trumps everything. If they argue otherwise, throw a huge shit fit and bring up every grievance you can think of. What you want, how you want, and when you want should be all that matters.

Rule 11: Never talk about Cupcake Club with men. They don’t need to know our secrets. It would be better for us if we kept them in the dark. Might be hard to get them to “man up” and marry us when we are ejected from the cock carousel with the baby rabies and hitting the wall.

Rule 12 (initial concept courtesy centurion 2000): Once married, if the relationship isn’t going well, say you need some space. Move to a state that has draconian divorce laws, THEN pull the trigger. That way you can maximize your payout. As a bonus, if children are involved, you can minimize his interaction with his children since chances are lower that he will be able to move in order to be closer to them. Then you can tell him what a shitty father he is because he doesn’t see his children more.

Rule 13 (initial concept courtesy toadman): There is no Cupcake Club, speaking amidst potential wallet-bait. However, if need be, you can bring it up obliquely if you are utilizing Rule 14 and hoping to convince your potential wallet that you are NAWALT. “Hey, baby, there might be Cupcake Club Rules out there, but I wouldn’t know anything about it because I’m NAWALT and nothing at all like those other women. Let me show you my shiny unicorn horn. By the way, how thick is that wallet you are going to share with me?” BUT, if you are not in wallet seeking mode, then “shut your hole, bitch! It’s our dirty little secret, ladies.”

Rule 14 (initial concept courtesy DruidV): The NAWALT rule. If in wallet seeking mode, always say NAWALT and, if you can pull it off, act NAWALT. Men are desperately looking for NAWALTs so use it to your maximum advantage. Once you have convinced your potential wallet into believing he has found a unicorn it will encourage him to allow you to attach to his wallet. Once attached, you can drop the act and go back to AWALT as it will be too late for him to do anything about it. Acting like a NAWALT is the most effective strategy to land the wallet you have your sights set on.

Rule 15: Regardless of how unattractive you are, whether looks, weight, personality, mentally, spriritually or a combination of them (all of them for our dear radical feminist sisters), you deserve a top 20% man. If however, you have to settle for a man among the less desirable 80%, settle for the man with the thickest wallet. That way when you dump him later on to pursue your top 20% man, you can maximize your cash and prizes. As a bonus, if you give birth during the marriage, the kids don’t necessarily have to be his, he just has to believe they are, you can increase your income stream even further, at least until the youngest turns 18, possibly even 26 depending upon circumstances. You don’t need to even spend any of that money on the kids, you can always gouge him for more. If he balks at buying whatever it is you want the kids to have, you can always tell him what a shitty father he is.

Rule 16: Make sure you tell your kids what a terrible man and father the wallet is. You want to alienate them from the father so that they are yours to manipulate and exploit for your own goals. If you’re good at it, you can even use the kids to get even more money out of the father’s wallet. If the kids get the wrong idea that you might be the problem, they won’t be available for you to use and manipulate later in life and you might be left having cats to keep you company because the kids never come to visit you.

Rule 17: Always bad mouth your exes to your potential wallet, telling him that they took advantage of you, were jerks, how you did everything while they did nothing, etc. Utilizing Rule 14 here would be a good idea to make it seem lucky that you are available. If you put on the NAWALT act well enough to earn an Oscar, he might even go into protector mode since he believes you got a raw deal from your exes and he won’t let that happen to you again. In this case, you will gain maximum exploitation rights as he’s willing to do anything for you to make sure you don’t get hurt again because he isn’t like those other guys and willing to prove it. As a bonus, you probably don’t have to sleep with him yet as he doesn’t get your motor running, and you want him to think that you’re a good girl, not a slut. But you might have to grease the trap sometime with sex because he does have a wallet you want to attach to and the fastest way to get attached is offering sex to a thirsty beta simp. At no time during the wallet dance do you want him to focus on how come all those other guys couldn’t make a relationship work with you, especially if you have several failed marriages under your belt. He might start to think the problem is with you and not the men. That is a disastrous line of thought when trying to land a wallet and must be stamped out at all costs. Afterwards, he can figure it out, but it will be too late by then.

Rule 18: If you are in a social lull where the wallets aren’t currently interested in you and the bad boys are done pumping and dumping you for the moment, make sure you tell everyone how awesome being single is, that you enjoy it and don’t need a man around. Publically be happy and go lucky. If you have kids, make sure you let the men out there know how much they are missing by not being involved in a single mother’s life. This can be done on Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, etc. Behind the scenes, you can be as cynical, bitter, nasty, and miserable as you want, but keep it contained that only close girlfriends and family see it. Anyone else sees it, they might be scared away. The key is you will lure more wallets in with honey than vinegar. Wallets might think they’ll be getting all this good stuff you are projecting and might actually commit because they wrongfully believe the superficial is the reality. You might have to utilize Rule 14 extensively in order to get him to commit his wallet. Once that is done, you can go back to your cynical, miserable, nasty, bitter, bitchy self as it will be too late for the wallet.

Rule 19: Jobs and money need to be handled by particular circumstances. In all cases, your money is yours to use as you see fit, he shouldn’t have any access to it. His money becomes our money and should be open for your use as well. All major expenses (cars, houses, vacations, remodeling, any other major expense) should be handled by his funds, regardless of who benefits from it. Here are the most common scenarios that occur.

Rule 19a: If you have a job, spend every dime you make on clothes, makeup, trinkets, decorations, shoes, and other useless stuff. You want your wallet to think you’re broke so he takes on all the bills, leaving you free to spend your money on what you want. If he is ungallant and asks you to help pay some bills, throw a fit using Rule 10 how emotions, “I feel that I need my money to pay for all my useless stuff” trump facts and logic, like paying bills. If he is malicious and insists on you paying for at least some bills, chose the cheapest ones, like the cell phone, water, internet, phone, etc. Always pay them late so your wallet might take them back so they are paid on time. If he tries the evil ploy of having you give him the money for the bills so they can be paid on time, tell him no, that you don’t trust him and either you will pay the bills your way or he can pay for them himself. The object is to get him to take the bills back, freeing up more of your money to spend. If he is conscious of credit reports, he will more than likely start paying the bills out of his funds just to make sure they get paid on time. As a word of caution, be careful in paying the cell phone bill late as that might effect getting upgrades later, or even getting it turned off which will be mortifying socially, even by telling them your stupid wallet didn’t pay the bill on time. You will lose ground on gossip, the last fakebook updates, or miss the text from that hottie you are interested in banging. That might be one bill you pay on time to ensure there is no interruption to your social life. The benefit of this scenario is that you have your own stream of money that you can spend any way you want without having to answer any tacky questions like “where did it all go?” If it does get asked, response should be along the lines, “My pay to do whatever I please and I don’t have to justify it to you.

Rule 19b: If you have landed a wallet and are currently working, consider dropping out of the workforce to be a stay at home wife. You can always tell your wallet it is in preparation of the children coming. Granted, you lose your income stream, but you hated that job anyway and would far prefer watching TV, going shopping, and hanging out with friends to doing boring work as it is unfulfilling. It also gives you opportunities to bring bad boy thugs back to your house to fill all your holes in the marital bed in complete privacy with no one the wiser, especially your wallet. Badger your wallet to make more so you have more to spend. If he balks, tell him how much work you do around the house, and how you are stuck there, and that actually you do $250K worth of work each year as calculated by some studies. He should be thankful you are home taking care of all these things. If he’s an asshole and points out how you do very few of these things, and the ones you do do are done poorly, utilize Rule 10 and tell him that he makes you feel bad about yourself and start crying and bringing up a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with the conversation. Bonus if you can turn the conversation into his shortcomings so he will eventually cave as he doesn’t want to deal with it. Downside to this scenario is some men want to track where every dollar goes and might be so crass as to ask what we’re spending money on. Best response is to put them off by saying generalities like “I bought stuff for the house, etc.” The one dreaded outcome in this scenario is the wallet restricting the flow of funds which necessitates elevation to full BITCHCON1. Either the wallet folds and you get what you want or he is done with you, in which case you can kick him out of the house, prevent him from seeing his kids, and get all your cash and prizes. As a bonus, you can openly show off your alpha and publicly let him to come to your house to bang the shit out of you.

Rule 20: Maybe the thugs you are bringing into your marital bed, or possibly banging in their run down, shitty apartment on the bad side of town will father your children and give them the attributes that turn you on. But the thug isn’t father material so make sure he doesn’t know that he’s the father as he might be tacky enough to want to be involved in the child’s life. He doesn’t understand that he was just for fucking and would make a terrible father. On the other hand, your wallet never finds out he isn’t the father of the children as he is just for raising and paying for them, not for fucking. You might fuck him once you are sure you’re pregnant and hoping to cover up the fact the kid isn’t his. This makes it so you get the children you want from the man you want and then get the wallet you want to pay for it all. Major cupcake coup.

Rule 21: When all else fails, use shaming language. If a man or wallet you have your eye on doesn’t want to get with you, make sure you tell him that it is because he’s gay, has a small penis, lives in his mom’s basement, just a child and hasn’t grown up, refusing to grow up to accept adult responsibilities etc. Tell them they need to “man up” and marry you, not to be afraid of a strong, independent empowered woman who is a NAWALT.

Rule 21a: Most wallets have started to become cunning and won’t let shaming language affect them. For those, you get society, the news, movies, and the public sphere feeding the same tropes in hope they will actually feel ashamed and start “manning up” by allowing women to attach to their wallets. Some will continue their avoidance and will have to be hunted down individually and eliminated before they spread any bad ideas about cupcakes out there.

Rule 21b: Shaming a man, primarily an alpha thug, but anyone that gets our motor running and gina tingling usually doesn’t work. They will either laugh in our faces and move on to the next cupcake which is hurtful and makes you want them even more, that you try to convince them that you can do everything they want and make them happy, they just need to put a ring on it. Do the convincing with a lot of sex and nonconventional sex. Even if it doesn’t work, you got a lot of hot sex out of it. The other possibility is the alpha thug will get annoyed with your nagging, slap you around, and fuck you hard seven ways to Sunday and then laugh at you afterwards. You will be a quivering bowl of jello in his awesome presence. If you can’t get him to marry you, find a wallet for your financial needs and continue fucking him with abandon anytime you get the opportunity, possibly utilizing Rule 20.

Rule number 22 always schedule your wallet date in a Saturday at 4 PM. Try to make your date a walk in the park, eating ice cream so your wallet thinks you are not materialistic. Then schedule the bad boy thug at 8 PM the same day so he can bang you until the next day.

Additional:
Instruct family & friends to vouch for your stories that all your former boyfriends were abusive bastards who were terrible to you.

@Boxer,
No, I’m not Ghost Rider.
But I keep a huge archive of MRA/MGTOW/PUA stuff (over 100+MB – TEXT alone), and reference it where necessary.
I just think it’s a real shame when the critical thinking of those posts, just get stranded in their own sites.
More men need to know that they are seen as ripe for exploitation, and they must get the best deal for themselves, rather than attempting behaviour that will get them in legal and criminal trouble. Sometimes it’s hard to do that, hopefully some of the posts help.
I also always recommend men have an easily accessible recorder on their person.
Too much bad behaviour is excused when we can make recordings and post them on Youtube.
Shame early, shame often!

Yeah, even hunters-gatherers pair bond and have children. Does it make the argument for a return to hunting & gathering convincing? Even if communism inside small interrelated groups with little individual property works, that does not mean that it is scaleable and generalizable to other types of societies.

Even if Marx, Engels,Lenin, Trotsky etc had goals/objectives and acts similar to modern feminism it doesn’t follow that “feminism is Marxist”.

For one thing, laying aside the nonsequitar, it isn’t even clear you are making a coherent statement, i.e. you seem to be confusing attribution (as if feminism where an artribute of Marxism) with causality, where you seem to be arguing that feminism is a product of Marxism.

It is better than plausible that the soviet policies were: politically expedient.
And it is likewise plausible that their commonality with some goals associated with feminism 30 years ago like no fault divorce…are as related to one another as Obamacare is to Chinese medical health policy in 2063.

Which is to say … Keep rolling out the quotes, you are proving nothing.

More importantly it doesn’t help. The only upshot of any of the discussion that I can intuit is that we are trying to understand feminism… Certainly that is a worthy goal.

But I sense I am reasonably safe positing the next Jezebel reader I date who doesn’t know jack squat about intimacy… Let alone that she should care about it, and the next cadre of corporate decision makers who confront me with “women only recruitment” … None of these are taking their cues from Marxism.

There are other forces at work driving them, Marxism is a red herring.

I don’t deny that biological facts are at play here. But this same marxist dynamic of oppressor and oppressed of capitalists and proletariat(in the economic sense) and the male oppressor and the female oppressed in the(social sense) exists.

The combination of marxist ideology and dark female nature caused the feminism of the 2nd wave to take on unique forms. Traditional feminism exists but its current form is marxist in its nature.

I read the link you posted titled, “Dating a divorced women with 2 kids.”

My first thought was, “Why?” Then I read his story. What a train wreck, and it only got worse as he gave more details. The only advice he needs with regard to her is, “RUN AWAY AS FAST AND AS FAR AS YOU CAN!”

(To address the topic of the thread – at least she managed to “close the wage gap” in her first marriage, since she had to support her husband for a while when his family business closed – although she didn’t like that much “equality,” since she admits that she divorced him because of his lack of income. What a great wife and mother she must be – /sarc)

At least he got some good advice there (which is unusual), but a lot of it was people looking for “Vatican Loopholes” to allow him to marry a much older divorced woman with two children – as if she was never “really” (wink, wink) married. Seriously, the woman is 36, got married for a green card, stayed married for several years, divorced her husband because he lost his job, took his two children, and slept with at least one other guy since then (although she’s being a “good girl” with him, of course) – and the people on CAF are trying to figure out if there’s some canonical loophole for her to negate her marriage on the grounds that she was never married in the fist place. This despite the fact that she, her husband, both their families, their children, everyone they know, and the state thought that she was. If the people on CAF are correct, then basically nobody on the face of the Earth has ever been “really” married. By the way, if Catholics get their marriages annulled, that is a declaration that the marriage did not ever exist – do priests demand that couples who get annulled go back and re-file their taxes from previous years as single rather than married? If not, why not? Filing as married when you’re single is tax fraud, and as soon as they realize their “error” aren’t they duty-bound to make it right by sending the Treasury a check for the difference? Doesn’t the Catholic Bible contain the story of Zacchaeus, and how he repaid everything he took, once he came to accept the truth?

The hypocrisy and craziness on CAF is stunning… at least as bad as anything nut-jobs like Stanton spew out.

The combination of marxist ideology and dark female nature caused the feminism of the 2nd wave to take on unique forms. Traditional feminism exists but its current form is marxist in its nature.

Yes, of course. That’s why Gloria Steinem, Catherine MacKinnon, Shulamith Firestone, Robin Morgan, Valerie Solanas, and all the other big names in “the feminism of the 2nd wave” came from China and the USSR. That’s also why Beijing, Hanoi and Havana are the hubs of most contemporary feminist activity, have the highest profile wimminz studies programs in their city universities, etc.

More importantly it doesn’t help. The only upshot of any of the discussion that I can intuit is that we are trying to understand feminism… Certainly that is a worthy goal.

AR occasionally posts something interesting, but this only comes after he starts being identified as someone who is merely here to waste time. 90% of the shitposting that I’ve seen from him seems to be personalizing and sexualizing other participants here, rather than addressing their arguments. Exactly as he’s doing now, with spam he doesn’t understand, shitposted pages and pages long.

Not that it makes any difference. He’s generally ignored by the most intelligent people anyway, and has been for years.

Back to interesting stuff… An effortpost on the Catholic Aristotelian tendency would be interesting, if you have the time. You alluded to it a couple of days ago.

Manginas doubling down. Note that it is not a woman heckling him, but a mangina feels the need to do so, over allegations that were never formal charges, and that allegedly occurred 30-40 years ago.

Men who peacock like this are doing it to impress women. It’s a fair bet that this faggot either had a wife/girlfriend in the audience, or he was so thirsty he was hoping to pick up a woman with this pathetic display.

One of the best things I imagine people can do is to point and openly laugh at men who show their feminism-in-public. Bonus points if some of our sisters can point and snigger at a public mangina.

If the people on CAF are correct, then basically nobody on the face of the Earth has ever been “really” married. By the way, if Catholics get their marriages annulled, that is a declaration that the marriage did not ever exist – do priests demand that couples who get annulled go back and re-file their taxes from previous years as single rather than married? If not, why not? Filing as married when you’re single is tax fraud, and as soon as they realize their “error” aren’t they duty-bound to make it right by sending the Treasury a check for the difference?

I realize you’re being sarcastic, but these are actually good questions. Much of western legal tradition is directly descended from ecclesiastical law (it’s why, even in the secular USA, you’ll find phrases like “I pray the court” in various documents).

Theoretically, a good Catholic ought to render unto Caesar, given that he’s taught that God’s law through the church supersedes man’s legal mistakes.

Really, the dimwits over on Catholic Answers ought to just accept the fact that they’re running divorce prep for many of the troubled marriages they pretend to “counsel”. It won’t make any difference, but they’ll have the dignity of not lying to themselves.

Manginas doubling down. Note that it is not a woman heckling him, but a mangina feels the need to do so, over allegations that were never formal charges, and that allegedly occurred 30-40 years ago.

Men who peacock like this are doing it to impress women. It’s a fair bet that this faggot either had a wife/girlfriend in the audience, or he was so thirsty he was hoping to pick up a woman with this pathetic display.

I keep thinking back to the UVa rape case that wasn’t fiasco and the Duke Lacrosse fraternity rape case that wasn’t fiasco and the Lena Dunham raped by the only Republican where she went to college but she really wasn’t fiasco and the Jameis Winston raped her but instead she really just had consentual s-x fiasco and it occurred to me that (sadly) I’m a bit jaded on the rape culture thing. The blue pill me used to just buy what women were always selling, always gave them the benefit of the doubt regarding rape. Sorry, too many women crying wold has me not buying it anymore.

I so agree with you regarding the case of the young man with the divorced mother of two that MarcusD linked to.
The young man should definitely walk away. He is much too inexperienced to handle this type of woman.
I do have some sympathy for him, though, because with his level of inexperience, ANY woman who shows him a bit of affection would seem like a very good catch. So I don’t blame him. He did receive some good advice on CAF (except for that annulment advice – I don’t think an annulment would make any difference, she is a bad bet for him, period. Plus, her marriage WAS valid, fullstop. It was entered into with the full consent of both parties. It was however fraudulent if it was for a green card, but that’s another debate…).

A much older man may be a more suitable match for her, though. One of my uncles married a foreign woman with a similar story after his horrible divorce, and she has turned out to be a good one. But he was much older than her with lessons learned in the past from his own divorce, so I guess he was better equipped to deal with ‘women with baggage’. This poor young man is not so well equipped. He needs to start afresh with someone with much less baggage. Preferably someone younger than him (or the same age) with no children or previous marriages.
He is suffering from ‘oneitis’ which could (in this case) really hurt him in the end. This woman is just not worth the pain he will experience…
😦

I wasn’t really being sarcastic, although I’m sure I came across that way. “Hacked off” is more like it. Ideas have consequences, and one of the things I learned a long time ago is that if you really believe something: whether it be Christianity, Catholicism, Islam, Atheism, or any other all-encompassing idea, you have to accept all the ramifications of it. Christianity, for instance, is radical – you really do have to love your enemies as Christ does. You often have to turn the other cheek. The list is long. Likewise, if you’re Muslim, you have to accept that you are commanded to conduct armed jihad whenever you have the ability to do so and have a chance of winning. In order to avoid being hypocrites, Atheists have to abandon any moral complaints they have about anyone’s actions, since there can be no moral law if there is no Moral Lawgiver (they also have to abandon all the Laws of Thermodynamics, too, but that’s another topic). Likewise, Catholics have to believe what their church hierarchy says about marriage and divorce. And what that hierarchy says (by its actions) is that unless a couple is both Catholic, married by an ordained Catholic priest, consummate the marriage, have not the slightest reservation, and both parties were good practicing Catholics every day (if not, the case can be made that they weren’t really Catholic at all), then they are probably eligible for an annulment – which means the RCC considers them to have never been married. By that standard, I and my wife are not married. I’m also a bastard since my parents (married for 54 years so far) weren’t either, apparently. In fact, I don’t know anyone who could not make a strong case for annulment, which means that I don’t know anyone who’s really, really, really married by RC standards… and that includes every married Catholic I’ve ever known.

Personally, I don’t much care about those nuts at CAF think, but I do care that they do it in the name of Christianity, while laying claim to a self-proclaimed moral superiority because they act as if “annulment” isn’t just the RC word for “divorce.” My point is that – if they really believe that they ought to act as if they really believe that and write a check to the Treasury for the taxes the would have paid if they had filed as “single” rather than as “married”. Not because it’s a legal requirement (it’s not), but because they should view it as a moral requirement. Until priests start demanding that annulling couples start writing those checks to the Treasury Department I’m going to keep calling them out on their hypocrisy.

IBB,

I wholeheartedly agree with your post at 10:27 this morning. I’m at the point where my first reaction to most rape allegations is skepticism, “Maybe, but likely not.” Women have too much to gain from making allegations, and the risk of punishment is low even if they get caught in a lie. When I see such lopsided moral hazard* I tend to question the source.

* Moral hazard is a situation in which one party gets involved in a risky event knowing that it is protected against the risk and the other party will incur the cost.

I mostly agree with you (you were typing your post at 1059 while I was typing mine at 1109). The woman is clearly married in the eyes of God, and nothing anyone says can change that – whether priest, pope, or judge. And given her history, she is not a good match for anybody. She divorced her husband because he couldn’t be a “good enough provider” to suit her tastes after his family business closed during the last recession. She literally turned her children into divorce orphans because her husband lost his job… after he paid for his green-card-seeking wife to get a Masters Degree. And there’s strong indication that she’s been sleeping around since her “divorce” as well, although CAF-boy clearly isn’t gettin’ any himself.

Like you, I feel bad for the guy – he’s clearly damaged, has a terrible case of oneitis, and thoroughly blue-pill. What he needs, she can’t give him. If they get married she’ll crush him inside a year.

I wholeheartedly agree with your post at 10:27 this morning. I’m at the point where my first reaction to most rape allegations is skepticism, “Maybe, but likely not.” Women have too much to gain from making allegations, and the risk of punishment is low even if they get caught in a lie. When I see such lopsided moral hazard* I tend to question the source.

Its terrible that things have gotten this way but my refusal to now give the benefit of the doubt is learned behavior. If anything, real victims of rape should be absolutely bullsh-t with the likes of a Crystal Gail Magnum at Duke, the Lena Dunham, the Jackie at UVa, and the pretty blonde co-ed at FSU who s-xed Jameis Wiston and then ran to the cops. What they do diminishes actual incidents of rape in the eyes of public opinion. That is real moral hazard here.

If not, why not? Filing as married when you’re single is tax fraud, and as soon as they realize their “error” aren’t they duty-bound to make it right by sending the Treasury a check for the difference?

I think it refers to civil marriage – they may not be married in the religious sense, but they are married in the eyes of the state, thus their taxes would have been filed correctly.

I was serious about reconciling the taxes if they decide they were “never really married.” A few years ago I got overpaid by a few hundred dollars by the government. I was switching between different sections of the military structure (it’s hard to explain), and I was changing duty stations at the same time, so wild variances in pay are standard fare – you just roll with it and eventually the payroll guys figure it out. But they didn’t tell me about it when they did, and then the paperwork got buried for six years until somebody was doing an audit of the old books and discovered the error.

Needless to say, they demanded a very large sum of money in the form of a check, right-freaking-now, Colonel. In fact by the time the letter got to me the due-date was already two weeks past. After nearly two additional years of dealing with incompetent government employees, five additional audits, and a total of six different “correct” answers for what they overpaid me all those years ago, I send them a small check to cover the actual balance. (The audits cost more than the amount I owed, but hey… that’s government for you). My point is that I told them – repeatedly – that I had no objection to paying whatever I legitimately owed, as long as they could prove to me that I really was overpaid by a specific amount. I considered it my moral duty to pay it – although there was no fault on my part and much time had elapsed. Likewise with annulment – once one discovers one’s error, one is duty-bound to pay back any benefits one received due to the error – even an error made in good faith.

Marcus, that’s a cop-out. Either you’re married or you’re not. If you discover, ex post facto – that you’re not married, and you really accept RC doctrine on that subject, you have a moral (not legal) obligation to pay back the taxpayers for the benefits you received when you were wrong about your “true” marital status.

That is an awful tale from Bolsheviks on CAF, and I sense from the way he writes that he knows that she is bad news and that she is a green-card gold-digger and looking for another man to be a wallet. She is already leeching on Mister kind-but-insecure for he says he bails her out financially. I wondered as I read him explain how well she manages on so little whether she might even be on the game. Also got the impression that she is probably a Philipino.

I was once his age and frankly dating a thirty-four year old with children is like dating ones own mother. Men are programmed, contrary to feminist bull-crap to care for women and that woman is playing his emotional and caring sensibilities (though doubtless giving him sex). What he needs to do is to ditch her and then go and shag a bunch of hotties – in the next few years his SMV can only rise. My Roman Catholic friends say that God loves a sinner and so repentance and absolution will not be a problem but finding himself on the receiving end of a divorce and all that goes with that is not something that can be washed away in the sacrament of Confession.

I’d love to hear her former husband’s doubtless very different side of the story.

The fact that she divorced #1 simply because he was not bringing home the bacon makes her instantly un-re-marriagable IMHO. She needs to go back to her first husband, the father or her children, and beg him to forgive her. She is not entitled to what appears to me at first glance, is a nice young man for husband #2.

Indeed: she was happy enough to come to America – you know, escape from the third world in pursuit of $$$$$$$$$, a rich husband. The very fact that she must have met her husband on some International dating-site is a pretty good indication that a nice Philipino boy or whatever was not good enough for her. She has also sought matrimonial success in Europe and in the same way.

Bolsheviks (I wonder why he calls himself that?) knows he should run for the hills – he just wants confirmation of his gut instinct – but I doubt he will find it at CAF.

My Roman Catholic friends say that God loves a sinner and so repentance and absolution will not be a problem but finding himself on the receiving end of a divorce and all that goes with that is not something that can be washed away in the sacrament of Confession.

LOL!

In order to avoid being hypocrites, Atheists have to abandon any moral complaints they have about anyone’s actions, since there can be no moral law if there is no Moral Lawgiver (they also have to abandon all the Laws of Thermodynamics, too, but that’s another topic).

LOL! Again. Troll on, dudes…

I guess according to the strict definition, I’d be an agnostic, rather than an atheist. I don’t think there’s any ultimate moral lawgiver, but I try to be a moral person anyway, just out of a general drive to rebel. Probably the same reason I get up and go to work everyday, despite being labeled an MGTOW. Sure, it’d be easier to just get on the dole (you Americanos have a very generous disability pension, given out apparently to anyone who asks for it), but people who do that get fat, and they’re usually bored and unhappy.

BTW Lyn, completely off topic, but the answer is apparently INTJ — That’ll likely mean more to you than me. I reject all attempts at pigeonholing!

Indeed: she was happy enough to come to America – you know, escape from the third world in pursuit of $$$$$$$$$, a rich husband. The very fact that she must have met her husband on some International dating-site is a pretty good indication that a nice Philipino boy or whatever was not good enough for her.

This is the number one reason why the marriage “contract” simply can’t be an “at-will” arrangement the way my employment is. I can’t speak for the divorce laws in the UK or any provinces of Canada, but here in the US anyone can nuke a marriage contract at any time for any (or no) reason in any of our 50 states. This is the single biggest reason why there is MGTOW. This is the single biggest reason why our marriage rate is dropping like a rock. This is the single biggest reason why Stanton and Driscoll and the other white-knight chivalrous tv/youtube pastors are doing the work of the devil (who never judged man, who celebrated every desire inspired by man) and not the work of Christ. This is the single biggest reason why Dalrock’s forum exists and why there is a manosphere.

I’m not at all surprised by the T (I expected that one), but I figured you for an S rather than an N. Oh well… these things are blunt instruments and don’t have the rigor of, say, mathematics.

I certainly wasn’t trolling about the Moral Lawgiver thing, though. If any atheist has ever come up with a reason why they feel justified in pronouncing judgements on the behavior of anyone else (while categorically rejecting any such judgements about their own behaviors), I have yet to hear it. The closest they can come – and it’s not close at all – is expediency… which is the most slippery of slopes (frequently with mountains of skulls at the bottom).

Having said that, expediency, upbringing, risk-aversion, and culture can be strong motivators for behavior (indeed, the day-to-day damages of feminism are related to imbalances in those areas), but the true atheist forfeits the right to say that someone else is wrong – since the rejection of an overarching moral code cannot exist in a purely mechanistic universe. The implications of feminist rejection of traditional morality is actually a pretty good club to beat them with once one masters it.

It is hardly surprising, given his military background that Lyn 87 should see morality as deriving from a short chain of command, but if I may say, and by reference to another American Colonel, to persist in such an idea would be to bring about another Little Big Horn. “In to the valley of moral complexity road the brave soldier. Was not a man dismayed” America sadly lacked a Tennyson to record the tragic event.

My head is however less clear about the 2nd (or any other) Law of Thermodynamics. It always seem to me to be a bit like the loaves and the fishes, for I have observed that although a new girlfriend will bring stuff into your home, that after she has departed there will always be more stuff remaining than she could ever have brought in, in the first place – things seems to multiply of its own accord. Perhaps this was what Foucault was really on about.

I’d like to say a little prayer for the poor families in Paris France whose lives have been destroyed over the last couple of days because their loved ones were brutally murdered for the sin of drawing cartoons.

23 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.

2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.

4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

‘Mechanistic’ is a wrong description. See? An atheist judging something to be ‘wrong’.

You are subjectively judging. How would you objectively judge it? Who has the final say as to whether or not your opinion in this matter is correct? I think ‘mechanistic’ is just fine in that context. Is there some law that says I am wrong? Also, why is it wrong to murder?

Well, you successfully trolled me without trying; though that’s not very difficult these days. Interesting riposte.

If any atheist has ever come up with a reason why they feel justified in pronouncing judgements on the behavior of anyone else (while categorically rejecting any such judgements about their own behaviors), I have yet to hear it.

I’ll give you an example. I pronounce judgment on women who get abortions, while rejecting anyone who judges me for getting an abortion. I believe this is a consistent ethical system. (I think if we’re talking about logic and math that’d be called “vacuously true” since I can’t get an abortion anyway.)

I don’t really need any supernatural god or devil to spoonfeed me the idea that women who get abortions are irresponsible, wasteful, narcissistic idiots, unfit to associate with — particularly in an age when reliable birth control is given away freely to anyone who asks.

The closest they can come – and it’s not close at all – is expediency… which is the most slippery of slopes (frequently with mountains of skulls at the bottom).

The Chinese have two competing ethical systems, and neither require a belief in any god or gods.

I think a concern with virtue is a manly pursuit generally, and I’m suspicious of any man who doesn’t seem to worry about the difference between right and wrong. Such a man ought to go live in the woods someplace.

Just in case anyone else is wondering about the four-letter acronyms flying around, I took my test at mbtionline dot com
I don’t put a whole lot of stock into these sorts of things, but it was worth doing and fairly interesting.

I don’t really need any supernatural god or devil to spoonfeed me the idea that women who get abortions are irresponsible, wasteful, narcissistic idiots, unfit to associate with

Sorry for butting in, but I am curious. Without an unchangeable objective moral standard, why are we to conclude that irresponsibility, wastefulness, narcissism, idiocy, as well as the fruits of such behavior, are bad things? We might not like the outcomes, but others may like them very much.

Why is it wrong for American women to have murdered the near equivalent to 1/5 of the current US population? According to the US government they committed no crime. Why is it wrong?

Who will they answer to for their crimes? If the answer is no one, then why not do what they did?

And If there is an objective moral standard that does not change, from where did it originate?

Even more, from an atheistic point of view, why do human beings have any sense of right and wrong to begin with if we simply came into existence by some kind of cosmic accident?

Even with the commandment about murder, there will be much hairsplitting. Is killing in self-defense murder, is killing by neglect murder, is killing at war murder, is killing for being insulted murder, is vendetta murder, is killing for blasphemy murder?

Is killing in self-defense murder, is killing by neglect murder, is killing at war murder, is killing for being insulted murder, is vendetta murder, is killing for blasphemy murder?

My thoughts (from my limited understanding of the bible):

self-defense – no

neglect – not normally (manslaughter I would think)

war – not normally, but people do commit murder during a war

for being insulted – yes

vendetta – yes

blasphemy – for an individual here and now, yes. Corporately in ancient Israel where the law of God required it, no.

coup de grâce – yes

Better to have hair splitting then no objective moral standard at all. Without the bible I would most likely be way off on some of those. I might think killing for a vendetta is just fine, but the bible is clear” Vengeance is mine says the Lord.” I might mistakenly think that all killing is sin, but the bible is clear that it is murder that is sin.

Marcus, that’s a cop-out. Either you’re married or you’re not. If you discover, ex post facto – that you’re not married, and you really accept RC doctrine on that subject, you have a moral (not legal) obligation to pay back the taxpayers for the benefits you received when you were wrong about your “true” marital status.

Well, I realize that. I’m just identifying the common perspective on it all.

A related situation is where CAF will counsel that someone get civilly divorced, but not have the marriage annulled, as a way of control (usually by the wife – if the husband does it, it’s abuse).

You don’t have to be sorry. We’re all just talking in the public square, you know. Good questions…

Sorry for butting in, but I am curious. Without an unchangeable objective moral standard, why are we to conclude that irresponsibility, wastefulness, narcissism, idiocy, as well as the fruits of such behavior, are bad things? We might not like the outcomes, but others may like them very much.

Well, as another manosphere atheist said in his essay: “It’s bad for the tribe”.

There’s always a tension between the long and the short term, the self and society. Abortion is, I argue, bad for society, even if some people find it convenient. What’s more, there are so many other alternatives that no one of even the most limited intelligence should ever need an abortion, except in the most extreme circumstances. (Apparently all these ho’s have never heard of the birth control pill, even though it’s been around for the better part of the last century.)

Why is it wrong for American women to have murdered the near equivalent to 1/5 of the current US population? According to the US government they committed no crime. Why is it wrong?

Lyn and Opus would be better to speak about legal stuff, I think. I know that ideally, legal and moral concerns should be pretty much congruent. In reality, that doesn’t often happen.

Re: Abortion… It’s wrong because it’s bad for the tribe. It deprives thousands and thousands of potential people (workers, thinkers, contributors) of the chance to achieve their potentials, all to satisfy the baser instincts of the lowest common denominator, and by no fault of their own. It also robs the parents of these people the opportunity to individuate. It’s a cop out, an easy way out of adulthood, unjust on every level, in nearly every possible circumstance (maybe in the case of a violent rape I could see the point of it — that’s about it).

Who will they answer to for their crimes? If the answer is no one, then why not do what they did?

Badiou answers that in *Logics of Worlds*. Basically the job of human beings is to become human, rather than to remain an animal. (Being a human being is not the default setting, in other words). In the translations I’ve read, the achievement of this process is usually called “the immortal”. Badiou is an old school French Marxist philosopher and he’s an atheist (naturally), so I don’t think he really means immortal in the religious sense. Even so, it’s a good term. We should choose to do the right thing because it’s our nature to rise above, and create something lasting, even if it takes a lot of effort to do that. People who vacuum their children into the garbage disposal are actively refuting the possibility of becoming human.

And If there is an objective moral standard that does not change, from where did it originate? Even more, from an atheistic point of view, why do human beings have any sense of right and wrong to begin with if we simply came into existence by some kind of cosmic accident?

Christianity and Judaism is actually a very new phenomenon. The Sumerians worried about right and wrong, as did the Egyptians and the Chinese, long before anyone had dreamt up the stories of Moses and Jesus. I think it’s a manly pursuit to worry about ethical matters. It may be inborn in men, or maybe it just arises out of necessity, as we’re social creatures. Notions of honor and decency exist in every society that ever put down their stories.

Note that while religion isn’t really necessary for a well-ordered society, this society has the Bible and Christianity/Judaism already embedded into it. If we’re going to rebuild a decent society, it will be easier to use that framework than impose another. In that regard, you’re right, temporally. Christianity is expedient here, and in that regard it is superior for our purposes to other options.

China is limited to economic Marxism and does not include cultural marxism in its formula because there is no need to. In western countries however:

Can you quote Marx talking about “cultural marxism”? I like things to be well-defined, so that I know what people are talking about.

I’m here to brainstorm about feminism and plan its eventual defeat. Old cold-war propaganda tapes from the 1950s don’t really add anything to resisting feminism. If they were useful, they’d have proven so, by now, as conspiracy kooks have been passing them around for the last three generations.

Be that as it may, here’s some tape you might be interested in…

If ever I get tired of criticising the sisterhood, I’m turning not to the communists that are hiding under your bed, but the lizard people. They’re far more powerful…

Exfernal, I assume you were attempting to bait me rather than address the crux of my argument – we’re talking about morality here. Sure, an atheist can say that “2+2=5 is wrong” with as much justification as I can, but he most certainly cannot say, “Torturing innocent babies to death with red-hot tongs for fun is wrong,” the way I can. I can say that because I accept the truth of a Moral Lawgiver who has declared that such is wrong. The atheist cannot: he can only say that it makes him feel bad, which is not morally binding on anyone (even himself).

That’s the atheist conundrum, because atheists are not at all shy about making moral judgements about people with whom they disagree… and neither Robert Wright not anyone else has ever offered a cogent argument in favor of a binding moral code based on anything more substantive than what they perceive to be expedient at that moment and/or what they find to be personally distasteful.

Without an Ultimate Moral Arbiter to declare right from wrong, it is frankly irrational to follow any path in life other than whatever you calculate will bring you the most favorable pleasure-to-pain ratio between right-this-moment and the moment you die. Murder the pediatric neurosurgeon who works for free because you don’t like his haircut? Hey, why not? If you think you can get away with it, and it would bring you five seconds of pleasure, there is literally no compelling reason not to do it unless there is a moral code against it decided upon by an agent who has the right to pass binding moral judgements on you. Kill 6,000,000 Jews and another 5,000,000 or so others to advance your vision of assisting the evolution of the species? Absolutely! It may have sucked for the victims, and most atheists get a case of feelbad about a few million murder victims (unless they’re among the unborn, anyway), but the atheist cannot condemn the murderers on moral grounds without being a hypocrite. It’s interesting that you chose to highlight China as a place with two competing atheistic “ethical” systems, since China has the distinction of hosting the greatest murder spree in the history of mankind – just since 1947 the Chinese government murdered somewhere around 65,000,000 people, and that doesn’t even count the abortions during that period, which numbers around half a billion, and is currently increasing at the rate of about 13,000,000 per year.

I should think that a nation that has led the world in slaughter with numbers like that would be among the last places I would search for a viable moral code.

Would be interesting if contributors to Dalrock participate, but if not, observe some interesting conversations.”

Thanks for the heads up. I haven’t visited this site in several days. Unfortunately, I don’t think I can add much to the discussion, that’s why I posted the excerpts and the link here. There’s no point in trying to convince feminists to treat nerdy young men with more respect. We all know that.

The best one can do, I think, is to instruct those nerdy young men in how to improve themselves to the point that they command more respect, as well as instructing them to abandon their feminist fantasies (the two go hand-in-hand, I think). I don’t feel qualified to do that. I’d hoped that someone here who is more qualified than I would see the need and meet it.

I can’t speak for others, but I regard being factually right as more important than being morally right (righteous). Also, I’m not a fan of saving people from themselves. Caring for 7 billions of people is too exhausting, not to mention rather fruitless.

If I think the speed limit is 70 and it’s actually 75 I am factually wrong, but it’s probably not important.

If I think the straps on my parachute are secure and they are not I am factually wrong, and it matters quite a bit more.

If I am morally wrong (regarding the commandments of God, since only He is qualified to make such commandments) and reject Christianity because of that, I will be eternally damned. That’s more important than anything.

If you want to bow out of the discussion on morality, though, please do so – you haven’t added anything substantive to it anyway.

Your attempt to paint me as a conspiracy theorist is laughable. However I do lend legitimacy to former KGB who defect to the United States.

I’m not painting you as anything. It’s what you are, by your own admission.

There are no KGB agents any more… and haven’t been for over 20 years, you do realize this, yes? How is this relevant to feminism that exists today?

I have already referenced the fact that the family was considered by Marx as an oppressive institution. Why don’t you look at that fact yourself?

Is this the same Uncle Karl, who was monogamously married to Jenny W. for like 50 years? Who had like 9 kids by her? Who died shortly after she did?

You didn’t answer my question because you don’t even know the defintion of the nonsense phrase you’re basing your argument on. Laughable and pathetic.

You don’t know what Marxism is. You don’t know what Marx wrote (can’t blame you there — it’s pretty dry reading), you are diametrically wrong about what he thought, and you’re apparently unaware that the “KGB” was dissolved over twenty years ago. (LOL!)

As an aside, The Catholic Church is actually behind Feminism, and all the other evils in the world. This Catholic Priest defected, and he spills the beans. (It must be true, because it’s on youtube.)

It’s been quite a while since I delved into that, and I don’t recall much about it in particular off the top of my head.

Euthyphro is a cat who is hurrying off to the state prosecutor, to have his father indicted for the accidental killing of a slave. The slave was not blameless, and in the course of being apprehended for some crime, Euth’s daddy exposed him to the elements, during which he died inadvertently. On his way, he meets Socrates.

The ensuing debate devolves into a general discussion about morality and maybe aesthetics. Is someone good because they outwardly do good deeds, or is someone good because he has an internal moral barometer?

I don’t know the story well either. Haven’t completely read it since teenagerhood. It’s worth checking out, though. Maybe Opus can give us a refresher.

(I can’t remember the other seven and probably have the numbers all wrong)

and then one could find exceptions, such that a soldier might kill the enemy of his state in war but obviously not his neighbour for having the television on a bit too loud.

It always amazes me that The Ten Commandments could bluntly say Thou shalt not Steal yet the 1968 Theft Act (which I used to know back-to-front) has over one hundred and twenty sections being a tidying up of the (before my time) unruly and inconsistent previous laws on Larceny; such is Judicially made law.

Well, as another manosphere atheist said in his essay: “It’s bad for the tribe”.

We still have the problem of “what is good and what is bad” and “why is it so” to deal with. What is “bad” for a tribe and why? Why is survival for a tribe “good”, or more accurately, why do we think that it is good?

Why do we think that depriving thousands of potential workers, thinkers, and contributors a chance to achieve their potentials is bad? Even with the idea that surviving is “good”, would the added mouths to feed give the tribe a better chance to survive than selectively eliminating dead weight? Wouldn’t a tribe whose only goal is to survive be justified in killing off those that are weak?

I realize that from an evolutionary point of view men want to pass on their genes, but doesn’t this come into conflict with what is “good” for the survival of a tribe?

For example, why do men dislike the idea of other men with better genes impregnating their wives? Wouldn’t it be “better” for the tribe? Also, from an evolutionary point of view, why have wives at all?

I’m sure you realize what I’m getting at. Please understand that i am not being disingenuous. These are the kinds of questions that I have asked myself many times in the past, and I have only found sufficient answers in Christianity as described in the Bible.

The ensuing debate devolves into a general discussion about morality and maybe aesthetics. Is someone good because they outwardly do good deeds, or is someone good because he has an internal moral barometer?

I’ve gotta hit the gym in about an hour, and probably don’t have time to do these thoughtful questions justice (in the Euthyphro sense); but, here’s a few quick answers…

But isn’t Badiou borrowing from a moral framework to make this assertion? Where did that moral framework come from?

In this case he’s not. It’s unusual for him, because he likes to draw on St. Paul for many things, as did his teacher (Louis Althusser). His little allusion to “the immortal” comes (IIRC) at the end of a long discourse on transformation generally. It’s better fleshed out in his ethics.

Basically we’re stuck in this model of changing, that is simply part of being in the natural world. The old Greek idea of physis captures this (an acorn changes into an oak tree on its own, it’s part of its nature). The immortal part of us is the human part that can change based upon reason.

If an animal is in a scary situation, it doesn’t need to choose, it just relies on instinct to dictate its next play. A human being can stop and think, and consider which of the routes of flight will be “right” (or at least “better”).

For example, why do men dislike the idea of other men with better genes impregnating their wives? Wouldn’t it be “better” for the tribe? Also, from an evolutionary point of view, why have wives at all?

No, it wouldn’t. Such behavior creates a low-trust society in a very short time. Freud talked about this in *Civilization and its Discontents*. Learning to control oneself and channel these baser impulses is the price we pay for living in a decent society, with bridges, highways and clean running water.

Even hardcore playas (read the latest from Roosh V. if you don’t believe me) are now talking openly about this. In a matriarchal ghetto full of easy sluts and cheating wives, you might get your sexual needs met, but the rest of your life will be a very poor experience.

Basically we’re stuck in this model of changing, that is simply part of being in the natural world. The old Greek idea of physis captures this (an acorn changes into an oak tree on its own, it’s part of its nature). The immortal part of us is the human part that can change based upon reason.

So the moral framework is really just another accident in a series of accidents that are part of the accident of evolution? That’s a lot of accidents. I really think Badiou is jumping to conclusions. He seems to be referring to reason as an answer to man’s self awareness and morality in the same way that we Christians rely on God. The difference that I see is that for him reason, self awareness, and morality appear to be steps in a cosmic accident, but for the believer God, who has always been and always will be, is the reason for reason, self awareness, and morality.

And I should add that given the complexity found in nature (genetic codes and the like) the idea that reason, self-awareness, and morality are accidents is even less appealing (by accidents I mean not intentional).

No, it wouldn’t. Such behavior creates a low-trust society in a very short time.

Of course it does, but why? Why should the defrauded men mind that their wives are impregnated by the men with better genes? Why wouldn’t these men give the “alphas” their blessing? Is it not better that the tribe have higher caliber men and women at it’s disposal in future generations? This is what I would expect if the “reason” part of evolution were true (not that I believe any of it is true).

^
A success is its own justification. As you mentioned earlier about ‘the test of time’. ‘Right’ endures, while ‘wrong’ perishes. Note that it doesn’t necessarily refer to the ‘truth content’. What survives, is right to survive.

While I agree with this, I do so in the eternal sense. I believe it because I believe there is an all knowing and all powerful being who wills it to be so.

What survives, is right to survive.

With out a moral arbitrator, isn’t this just someone saying it’s right because it survived? If it were true that what ever survives is “right” (because it survived) and what does not survive is “wrong” (because it did not survive), then “right” and “wrong” in a moral sense would not exist.

It seems to me that with out a moral sense of right and wrong, abortionists and other mass murderers have done no wrong, neither has the thief or the frivorcing wife who destroys her family using a misandric family court system (which also would have done no wrong). Then what are we all doing here? There is only the victor and the vanquished.

You’re on fire, my brother. This is all very good, hard-hitting critique.

With out a moral arbitrator, isn’t this just someone saying it’s right because it survived? If it were true that what ever survives is “right” (because it survived) and what does not survive is “wrong” (because it did not survive), then “right” and “wrong” in a moral sense would not exist.

That depends upon whether you want to live in an advanced civilization, or in a matriarchal ghetto.

If your ideal is the latter, then sure, might makes right, kill the “weak”, etc. (The “weak” are largely useful men who aren’t quite as good at streetfighting as some others, mind you.)

Patriarchy is pragmatic. If you have a monogamous society, with one man married to one woman, and harsh penalties for fucking other people, then you’ll free up the surplus labor of all the couples to work toward progress and advancement. If you have a polygynous society, you live in the jungle, where everyone spends all day competing (often violently) for the attentions of some dirty skank-ho single moms, and has no extra time or energy to develop new or cool things (or even to maintain what their monogamous forefathers built, generations before).

This is a nice extension of Badiou’s ethics. Sure, it’s fun in a selfish way to have casual sex with lots of skanky wimminz, but when a large number of men start doing that, life becomes hell in all the other respects.

It is our destiny to achieve the immortal… that means sometimes we have to put our short-term, selfish interests aside, in order to do what’s best for the tribe.

”You don’t know what Marxism is. You don’t know what Marx wrote (can’t blame you there — it’s pretty dry reading), you are diametrically wrong about what he thought, and you’re apparently unaware that the “KGB” was dissolved over twenty years ago. (LOL!)”

Woops, looks like 8oxer’s re-education program is even bigger than I previously thought,

He needs to get to work on the International Journal of Social Renewal

links.org.au/node/4028

This is a review of a book by one Heather Brown entitled Marx on Gender and the Family: A Critical Study, the gist of which appears (one can never tell from a review) to be that Karl Marx was in essence quite sympathetic to feminism.

Excerpt:Brown highlights Marx’s dialectical method in being vital in understanding gender and the family. She says that Marx did not apply ahistorical philosophical categories to reality, he empirically analysed the world and utilised categories that he discovered there.

“While Marx’s theory remains underdeveloped in terms of providing as account that includes gender as important to understanding capitalism”, Brown says, “his categories, nonetheless, lead in the direction of a systematic critique of patriarchy as it manifest itself in capitalism since he is able to separate out the historically-specific elements of patriarchy from a general form of women’s oppression, as it has existed throughout much of human history”.

This short, comprehensive handbook will no doubt provide the basis for a new wave of feminist engagement with Marxism and is a clarion call for all those who regard themselves as Marxists to re-evaluate their ideological conceptions.

Heather Brown allows us all to read Marx with new eyes.

It isn’t difficult at all to find these examples and more via a search engine.

Like all feminists playing the long game, “Anonymous Reader”‘s goal here is two fold. The first is to decrease the credibility of antifeminists through libel and innuendo. He does that to me with:

Woops, looks like 8oxer’s re-education program is even bigger than I previously thought,

His second objective is to run interference for feminism itself. He’s been doing that in this thread by assuring readers that feminism isn’t the real problem. What we should be worrying about is a long dead political movement that hasn’t had any credibility in forty years or so. Real antifeminists are all secret agents of this movement, (which hasn’t existed in reality in over a generation).

Isn’t that nice? All you guys who are concerned about actual feminism, as it exists in the real world, can just go home now. It’s not a problem. A couple of anonymous kooks on the internet say so.

I find it amusing that churches and society refuse to police young feral girls who are intent on having sex with thugs. A man who won’t marry and settle down is evil, yet why is there no blame and shame towards women who won’t settle down when they are 18-25? They go first with regard to picking since they have their assets while young. In a just world men who won’t work hard and marry will be shamed just as much as a girl who is a slut, a single mom, or a woman who gets a divorce. . That is compromise. Of course trad cons and feminists don’t want women to meet men in the middle. They want their cake and eat it too. It’s a nightmare. . Most men can’t even man up and provide due to the globalized economy and more and more refuse to do so. Only a moron slaves away just to raise another lesser man’s kid. . As much as women want to believe; men are not stupid. Women just. . There are more sluts in church than in a whore house. . Pastors know it yet refuse to speak for fear of angering women.